MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-81150-14 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  In  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  Infringement. 

This  Institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if.  In  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


KOEHLER,  MATHILDA 
ANNA 


TITLE: 


CATALINA  IN  CLASSIC 
TRADITION 

PLACE: 

[NEW  YORK?] 

DA  TE : 

[1919] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  U 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TARCF.T 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


ffm^i^TyigtiiBfar-tnfifmmrmmn'^m'^^  *'nm  '      '■'■*'<"w|i)p<wwwi 


.fWftJ-lfll'     ' 


J  874.05 

\  K818 


Koehlert  Mathilda  Anna. 

Catilina  in  olassic  tradition.  A  thesis  •••by 
Mathilda  Anna  Koehler...    ^oif   York?  19193* 

58  p«   23  om« 

Bibliography  p.  57-58* 

Thesis  (Ph.D. )  New  York  Univ.  1919.- 

An  historical  review  of  the  ancient  reports, 
chief  among  which  were  those  of  M«  Tullius  Cicero, 
Quintus  Cicero,  Sallust^.** 


W 


^^. 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:___<l^x?-_ REDUCTION     RATIO:        /^ 

IMA^E  PLACEMENT:    lA  dLS    IB    IIB 

DATE     FILMED: l-_y_-J_2 INITIALS.../;^ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDG^f 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4 

liiiiliiiil 


Mil 


llllilllllllllllllllllllilllllllllilllllllllllllllllllilllllllililllllllllilll 


6         7        8 

iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


9       10       11 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 


12       13       14 


15    mm 


T 


Inches 


i  I  I 


1 


TTJTT 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


2.8 


163 

3.6 


I 


GiUb 


1.4 


I   M   I  I  I   I 

4 

2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


I   I   I  I  IT  T 

5 


MRNUFfiCTURED   TO   nilM   STflNOnRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMflGEp     INC. 


^ 


m 


i  :  i 


jSs. 


•* 


>'*. 


<P 


i:^ 


CATILINA 

IN  CLASSIC   TRADITION 


A  Thesis 


{or  the 


Doctorate  in    Philosophy 


by 


MATHILDA  ANNA  KOEHLER,  M.  A. 


i' 


S7^.0^ 


V<S\B 


Columbia  Winibttiit]? 

in  tift  Cit?  of  ^eto  ^ovk 


LIBRARY 


CATILINA 

IN   CLASSIC   TRADITION 


A   Thesi 


esis 


for  the 


Doctorate  in    Philosophy 


by 


MATHILDA  ANNA  KOEHLER,   M.  A. 


//, 


'^^idL- 


A  Thesis  for  the  Doctorate 

submitted   in   partial   fulfillment  of  the 

requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

in  the  Graduate  School, 

New  York  University, 

New  York 

1919. 


To 

my  Father  and  my  Mother, 

whose   unfulfilled  ambitions  have  ever 

been  an  incentive  to  worthy  achievement, 

this  thesis  is  dedicated  ex  pio  animo. 


U4.05 


It  is  with  the  deepest  sense  of  indebtedness  to  the  wonder- 
ful inspiration  and  noble  ideals,  emanating  from  the  scholar- 
ship and  personality  of 

Ernest  G.  Sihler,  Ph.  D.,  Litt.  D., 

Professor  of  the  Latin  Language  and  Literature 

at  New  York  University, 

that  I  would  herewith  tender  to  him  public  expression  of  my 
recognition,  appreciation,  and  gain,  of  those  invaluable  assets. 


•CATILINA  LN  CLASSIC  TRADITION 

An  historical  review  of  the  ancient  reports,  chief  among 
which  were  those  of  M.  Tullius  Cicero,  Quintus  Cicero,  Sal- 
lust,  Suetonius,  Asconius,  Plutarch,  Dio  Cassius,  and  Appian,. 
with  references  to  modern  critical  surveys,  destructive  and 
constructive,  and  a  consideration  of  the  problems  incidental  to. 
Catilinarian  matters. 


Catilina  In   Classic  Tradition 


Table  of  Contents 


I  nirth    and    Earlier    Traits 9 

J I  Apprenticesliip  to  Sulla             -._->.         -i^ 

I I  i  Fabia  .        .        - 12 

l\  The    Minor    Conspiracy 13 

V  Trial  for  Malversation  in  Africa — De  Catilina  Defendendo         17 

VI  Condition    of   the    Times  -------     19 

VII  Candidature    in    64    B.    C. 21 

VIII  In   Toga   Candida  22 

IX  Trial  and  Acquittal  as   Executioner  under   Sulla         -         -         23 

X  Preludes  to  the   Great   Conspiracy         -        -        -        -        -    24 

XI  Motives  and  Associates  of  Catilina      -----        25 

XII  Eulvia,  the  Detective  21 

^Ili         The   E"irst   Catilinarian         - 28 

XI\'         The    Contio  -- --29 

X\'  The    Election   Prohleni          -.-_-__         35 

XVI  Prosecution  of  Murena  and  Problem  of  the  Date  of  his 

Trial 39 

XVII  Documentary   Evidence  -     -         -         -         -         -         -^43 

XVIII  Infliction  of  the  Penalty 48 

XIX  Death  of  Catiliiui — Resulting  Court  Cases  -         -        -        5() 

XX  The  Aftermath  for  the  Consul -        -    54 

XXI  Sallust  and   Suetonius,  and  other  historians,   in  brief         -         54 

XXII  Conclusion        -.----_>.        -56 
XXTH     HiblioRraphy 57 


Lucius  Sergius  Catilina,  born  about  108  B.  C,  was  a  mem- 
ber of  one  of  the  most  ancient  families  of  Rome ;  a  descendant 
of  that  Sergestus  mentioned  in  Vergil's  Aeneid  in  connection 
with  the  boat  race.'  There  was  no  older  family  than  the 
Sergii  in  the  city.  Though  [latrician,  the  family  had  become 
impoverished. 

Catilina  had  gained  all  the  offices  of  the  Roman  Cursus 
lionorum — quaestorship,  aedileship,  and  the  praetorship  68 
I*.  C,  after  which  he  had  been  allotted  Africa  for  his  province. 
Of  his  government  as  propraetor  67  B.  C,  we  shall  hear  more. 
IJeing  a  patrician,  he  was  not  eligible  as  a  Tribune  of  the 
Plebs. 

Both  Cicero'  and  Sallust,'  who  present  the  most  detailed 
delineation  of  his  character,  agree  that  he  was  remarkable  in 
many  ways :  he  possessed  wonderful  powers  of  physical 
endurance  and  his  mind  was  keen,  but  he  exercised  both 
to  pervert  and  lead  astray  those  with  whom  he  came  into 
contact,  ])articularly  influencing  young  boys  whom  he  lured. 
He  checked  his  good  impulses,  restraining  whatever  innate 
nobility  he  had  inherited.  That  he  possessed  redeeming  quali- 
ties which  he  did  not  permit  to  gain  the  ascendancy  is  por- 
traved  in  Cicero's  Pro  Caelio*  where  each  evil  tendencv  is 
balanced  by  a  better  trait.  The  Pro  Caelio  gives  a  much 
milder  conception  of  Catiline  than  the  Catilinarians  do.  The 
contrasts  are  those  of  vice  and  virtue.  His  versatility  drew  to 
himself  the  wicked,  and  by  an  apparent  goodness  he  attracted 
honorable  men.  The  antithesis  in  the  speech  is  strong.  "A 
man  who  would  be  all  things  to  all  men,"  Ouintus  Cicero*^ 
describes  Catiline. 

His  was  an  indomitable  spirit,"  persistent  in  his  attempts  to 
gain  his  goal.  His  determination  is  evinced  especially  in  the 
fact  that  although  once  prevented  from  standing  for  the  con- 
sulate because  he  had  been  an  unjust  governor  in  Africa,  and 


^Vcrg.   Aen.,  ancestry  traced  to  ancient  Troy. 
-Cic.    Cat.    1,    II,    III,    IV^,    chiefly,    and    his    other    works. 
M  tog.  cand..  Clarendon  Press. 
'Sail.  Cat. 

♦Cic.   Pro  Cacl.   C  4,   5,   6    (B.   C.    56). 
*'In  Cic.   De  Pet.   Cons. 
"Pro  Mur.  C.  24,  25. 
'Cat.  I  9,  10. 


.\1so    .\sconius    Frag. 


later  meeting  with  defeat  (repulsa)  in  his  election  contest 
with  Cicero,  he  determined,  nevertheless,  to  canvass  again. 
This  effort,  too,  proved  unsuccessful.  Therefore,  to  gain  his 
point  he  resorted  to  hostile  measures  and  intimacy  with  the 
vilest  men/ 


11 

Catiline's  career  and  reputation  previous  to  the  publicity 
achieved  by  his  great  conspiracy  are  recorded  by  various 
writers/ 

One  of  the  experiences,  perhaps  the  experience  in  life, 
that  had  the  greatest  influence  upon  Catiline  was  his  early 
apprenticeship  under  Sulla,  8i  B.  C.-80  B.  C. 

In  the  slaughterings  of  Roman  Knights'  he  is  first  known 
in  the  oldest  and  earliest  written  record  of  Sulla  we  have. 
Froni  his  participation  in  them  we  gain,  too,  a  glimpse  of 
Sulla's  times.  The  knights  and  all  who  had  been  purse- 
fillers'  under  Cinna  were  publicly  posted  on  proscription  lists 
after  Sulla's  victory,  and  with  the  bankers,  whom  as  a  class 
Sulla  hated,  without  trial  suffered  decapitation  by  law  of  war. 
Every  head  was  turned  into  the  town  house  of  Sulla  and  a 
secretary  identified  the  head  and  took  the  name  of  the  con- 
tributor. The  slayer  was  entitled  to  a  bounty  of  $2,000  per 
head.*  It  is  claimed  that  Catiline  personally  brought  in  about 
ten  heads;  Cicero  names  at  least  three'  not  including  Grati- 
dianus.    The  loot  was  divided  among  the  friends  of  Sulla. 

In  charge  of  the  Gauls,  who  were  either  slaves  or  ex-slaves 
engaged  to  kill  the  proscribed,  Sulla  had  appointed  an  excel- 
lent supervisor,  Lucius  Sergius  Catilina,  whose  murderous 
mstmcts  were  ever  displayed,  then  and  later.  '*Nam  illis 
.  .^  .  Gallis'"— Gesner  has  even  conjectured  "demetebant" 
for    demebant"— i.  e.,  who  "mowed  off"  heads  of  bankers 

Perhaps  the  most  horrible  execution   was   that  of  Mariu^ 
(jratidianus,  a  clever  politician  highly  esteemed  by  the  people 
who  had  twice  been  praetor  under  Cinna  while  Cinna  domi- 
nated Italy  and  the  West  during  Sulla's  activities  in  the  East 
and  before  the  latter's  return.     The  heacT  of  Gratidianus  had 
been  severed  from  his  body,  and  Catiline  himself,  with  his  own 
hands,  had  then  carried  it,  still  full  of  breath  and  living  tissue 
through  the  streets  of  the  city,  from  the  Janiculum  to  Sulla 
at  the  temple  of  Apollo.'    Quintus  Cicero  in  the  De  Petitione 
Consulatus  says  the  "blood  was  dripping  through  his  fingers."" 

'h'''?-^^^'"'"   ^"  '°^'   '•^"'^•'  ^'^'^'■°'   S^""«»'  Q»'"t"s  ^'icero. 

?n  tg.   caJd'gO.""  ''•  '•  ^""-  '"  '''•  ""'•  '''  ^'"^-  '""^'  P^"^-  ^^'"  chiefly. 
*P]ut.   Sulla,  Plut.  Cat.  Min. 
*In   tog.   cand.   75. 
•De  Pet.   Cons.   C.  2. 


Cicero  and  his  brother  Quintus  repeatedly  refer  to  this 
cruel  incident.  These  sights  stirred  up  bitter  feelings  in 
Cicero,  then  25  years  old  (in  82  B.  C.-81  B.  C),  for  he  and 
[lis  brother  Quintus  saw  these  acts  pn  the  Forum  and  sor- 
rowed over  these  proscriptions.  The  descriptions  of  Quintus 
are  so  vivid  that  there  is  probability  that  he  saw  many  of 
these  acts  and  drew  from  his  stock  of  memories'^  of  these 
observations.  There  was  some  blood  connection  between 
the  grandfather  of  Cicero  and  this  man;  Quintus  and  Marcus 
Tullius  therefore  knew  this  case  well,  although  Cicero  men- 
tions* many  others. 

Everyone  who  had  witnessed  these  exhibitions  of  Catiline's 
cruelty  shuddered  at  their  very  remembrance  of  them  when- 
ever they  saw  Catiline."  On  these  memories  were  based  the 
people's  fear  of  Catiline  as  a  second  Sulla."  The  reflection  of 
the  character  of  neither  Sulla  nor  Catiline  is  very  beautiful. 

Sulla  would  pay  double  or  triple  money  for  that  head  of 
Marius  Gratidianus,  who  was  considered  the  prize  of  prizes, 
for  he  had  been  adopted  by  the  great  Marius  and  he  was  the 
only  man  of  the  name  of  Marius  whom  Sulla  could  reach  : 
he  decreed  that  the  eyes  of  Gratidianus  be  plucked  out,  and 
liis  legs  broken,  and  his  hands  cut  off  before  being  put  to 
death.  It  was  then  that  the  young  aristocrat  made  his  first 
appearance  upon  the  stage.  It  was  a  case  of  an  "eye  for  an 
eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,"  for  Catulus  had  been  a  Victim  of 
Marius;  therefore  this  Marius  Gratidianus  was  slain  on  the 
same  spot. 

Practically  the  same  facts  are  related  by  Plutarch"  in  con- 
nection with  another  story  of  Catiline's  cruelty.  Lucius 
Sergius  Catiline  had  been  accused  of  many  great  offences,  but 
among  the  worst,  which  was  thought  to  exceed  all  other 
acts,  was  the  decision,  and  the  immediate  fulfillmentof  it,  to 
put  his  brother"  out  of  the  way.  Afraid  of  being  orosecuted 
at  law  for  that  crime,  he  persuaded  Sulla  to  enter  his  brother's 
name"  on  the  list  of  those  to  be  proscribed  as  though  he 
were  yet  among:  the  living.  This  request  was  granted,  and 
as  an  appreciation  of  the  favor  and  an  immunity  for  himself, 
Catiline  assassinated  a  certain  Marcus  Marius,  belong-ing  to 
the  opposite  faction.  He  then  brought  the  head  to  Sulla  in 
the  forum,  and  going  to  a  near-bv  vessel  containing  the  Holv 
Water  of  Apollo."  he  washed  his  hands. 

^De   Pet.    Cons.    C.    3,    In   tog.   cand.    75,    78,   80.      Seneca   c.    I   Writes   of   Marius 
'lignus  erat  Marius  qui  ilia   pateretur."     Sihlcr   Cic.   of   Arp.   p.   41    n.   3. 
•n    tog.    cand.     75,    De    pet.    cons. 

*In  tog.  Cand.  80,  81.  Asconius  exact  in  detail  in  explanation  to  his  sons 
clearly  established  which  temple  and  its  location,  for  a  change  had  been  made  by 
Augustus. 

"Tn   tog.  cand.   75,   De   Pet.   cons.  C.   3. 

^"This  IS  years  previous  to  his  composition,  (De  Pet.  cons.  65-64  B.  C),  Quintus 
!•-  usually  a  calm  writer — no  rhetorician — but  here  he  is  strong.     C.   2,   3. 


10 


11 


il 


By  proscription  debtors  settled  accounts,  or  grasped  the 
wealth  of  victims,  as  the  price  of  their  denunciations,  and 
Sulla's  favorites  had  a  chance  to  graft  by  bidding  for  the 
properties  of  the  unfortunates.  It  Was  for  defense  of  a  case 
from  this  period  that  Cicero  won  his  first  great  renown  as  a 
patronus"  and  became  one  of  the  most  famous  in  Rome;  the 
foremost  of  his  age. 

In  studying  these  events  (81-80  B.  C.)  it  is  well  to  keep  in 
mind  that  Mommsen  and  his  school  contend  that  Cicero  later 
(65-63  B.  C.)  merely  exaggerated  the  whole  matter  of  repudia- 
tion of  debt.  But  is  not  the  germ  of  that  future  plague 
existent  in  these  factors  widely  prevailing  in  81-80  B.  C.  ? 

"Plut.   Cic.   Plut.   Cat.,   Sail.   Cat.   C.   15,  In  tog.   cand.   80. 

^-Cic.    Cat.    II,    "If    Sulla's    time   will   come    once   more." 

"Plut.   Sull.,   Plut.  Cic. 

"Plut.  Sull.     Accordingf  to  Do  Petit,  cons.  C.  2,  it  was  a  brother-in-law,  Caecilius. 

"Veil.   II,   28,   4.     Oros.   V,   21,   "alios  proscribebant." 

"Plut.    Sull.    31. 

^'Pro  Roscio  Amerino. 


Ill 

Catiline,  as  a  youth,  had  set  at  defiance  all  law  and  religion 
and  had  committed  many  criminal  offenses.  In  73  B.  C,  Cati- 
line was  charged  with  an  intrigue  with  a  Vestal  Virgin.  A 
priestess  of  Vesta  found  guilty  of  "incestum,"  i.  e.,  lost  chas- 
tity, forfeited  her  life  by  state  law ;  no  other  woman  was  so 
punished.  The  technical  word,  referring  to  the  purity  of  the 
Vestal  Virginis  only,  is  ''casta,"  chaste  or  virtuous.  The  con- 
duct and  chastity  of  the  Vestals  was  of  very  particular  im- 
portance. It  is  recorded  that  Crassus*  had  a  kinswoman,  a 
cousin,  one  of  the  aristocracy,'  who  was  a  Vestal  Virgin  and 
because  Crassus,  who  dealt  in  real  estate,  called  on  her  fre- 
quently at  the  Vestal  Virgin  house,  in  relation  to  her  property 
outside  of  the  city,  which  he  wanted,  her  name  finally  came 
into  question. 

This  trial  of  73  B.  C.  is  of  especial  interest  because  it 
involved  Fabia,'  the  half-sister  of  Terentia,  wife  of  Cicero; 
both  women  were  of  the  aristocracy,  although  Cicero  was  not. 
When  the  suspicion  of  disgrace  came  upon  Fabia,  the  Pon- 
tifices  under  the  Pontifex  Maximus  held  a  trial,  investigated 
the  facts,  clearly  established  her  innocence,  and  gloriously 
acquitted  her.  Catiline  was  dangerous  to  any  pure  woman  ;  any 
lady  acquainted  with  him  lost  in  reputation,  simply  because 
it  was  Catiline. 

*Plut.  Crass. 

'Only  women  of  the  highest  aristocracy  could  be  chosen  Vestals. 


Sallust*  mentions  the  intrigue  with  the  Vestal  but  does 
not  add  a  word  about  the  investigation  and  non-conviction  of 
the  Vestal. 

Asconius,  on  the  other  hand,  who  is  authority  for  the  facts 
(^f  the  trial,  gives  no  intimation  that  Catiline  stood  trial,  which 
lie  certainly  must  have,  if  he  was  the  accused  man. 

This  we  learn  from  Orosius,'  who  establishes  the  trial  as  of 
-jl  B.  C.  Marcus  and  Quintus  Cicero  both  bring  in  this  Fabian 
matter.  Evidently  Catiline  committed  adultery  and  the 
abominable  act  of  besmirching  the  name  of  a  maiden  of  the 
nobility,  for  we  read  *'Cum  deprehendebare  in  adulteriis  ...''' 
and  also  "Dicitur  Catilina  adulterium  commisisse  cum  ea  quae 
ei  postea  socrus  fuit,  et  ex  eo  natam  stupro  duxisse  uxorem, 
cum  filia  eius  esset.  Hoc  Lucceius  quoque  Catilinae  obicit  in 
oratonibus  quas  in  eum  scripsit,"  but  Asconius  says  he  had  not 
di.scovered  the  names  of  the  two  women.*  The  case  of  the 
maiden  is  probably  the  one  referred  to  by  Sallust  c.  15  and 
Plutarch.  Sallust  implies  that  he  committed  other  flagrant 
indiscretions  but  does  not  specify^  others. 

"Tu   tog.  cand.   82,   De  Pet.  Cons.   C.  3. 

^Sall.    Cat.   C.    15. 

'•Oros.   VI,   3. 

'In  tog.   cand.   82. 

"Sail.  Cat.  C.  9-15  is  rot  exact  in  narration  of  early  crimes.    .Plut.  Cic.  Pint.  Cat. 


IV 

The  Minor  Conspiracy,  or  so-called  first  conspiracy  of 
Catiline,  has  quite  as  much  matter  to  commend  it  to  our 
serious  thought  as  will  the  later  great  conspiracy.  Some  of 
the  leading  characters  in  this  one  will  assume  their  same  roles 
in  the  later  one;  the  very  underlying  motive,  though  more 
disguised  in  the  earlier  one,  becomes  the  gigantic  peril  in  the 
later  one;  the  same  perverted  forces  will  be  directed  against 
the  .cfovernment ;  and  the  same  indifferent  guards  of  the 
republic  are  present,  until  in  the  later  attempt  a  vigilant 
consul  rouses  them  from  their  lethargy. 

The  information,  in  regard  to  it,  is  to  be  had  from  various 
sources,  and  it  looms  upon  the  horizon  as  a  very  potential 
monster,  whose  foot-prints  the  wary  hunter  must  ever  track. 

Suetonius'  brings  to  light  the  fact  that  Caesar  and  Crassus 
had  made  a  pact  whereby  they  planned  that  at  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  consuls  on  Tanuary  ist,  65  B.  C,  they  would  have 
the  Senate  attacked,  Crassus  usurping  the  Dictatorship  and 

^Suet.   Vit.  J.  Caes.   1.  9;  of  this  complicity  in  a  plot  Sallust  says  nothing,  cf.  Cic. 
Phil.   II.     In   tog.   cand.   83.    Sihler   Caes.   c.   9. 
'In   tog.   cand.   74,   82. 
»App.    Bell.    Civ.    IV,  1. 


12 


13 


h 


naming  Caesar,  now  about  thirty-five  years  old,  as  Master 
of  Horse.'  Caesar  was  already  somewhat  conspicuous  as  a 
leader  of  the  great  party  called  Populares.  At  this  time,  how- 
ever, the  Senatorial  Party  was  still  the  better  organized.  A 
brief,  but  rather  necessary,  description  of  Caesar  at  this  period 
to  throw  light  on  later  events  might  be  interposed  here;  it  is 
taken  from  Appian.'  Caesar  was  still  a  young  man,  forceful 
in  speech  and  deed,  daring  to  a  high  degree,  ambitious  of  all 
honors,  and  lavish  beyond  his  means  in  their  pursuit ;  thereby 
he  incurred  heavy  debts,  though  he  was  very  popular  with 
the  general  public,  who  are  ever  wont  to  praise  him  who  is 
•generous  with  gifts. 

The  tv/o  hoped  to  gain  the  aforesaid  advantages  through 
P.  Autronius  Paetus*  and  P.  Cornelius  Sulla,'  who  had  been 
consuls-elect  for  65  B.  C,  but  were,  unfortunately,  indicted 
on  a  charge  of  Ambitus,'  brought  by  Torquatus  and  two  of 
their  colleagues.y  Since  they  were  found  guilty  of  paying 
their  way  into  office,  Torquatus,  with  another  competitor, 
Cotta,  entered  office  on  Jan.  ist.  65  B.  C. 

It  has  also  been  said  that  Autronius  and  Sulla  were  financed 
hy  Crassus  and  Caesar,  although  Caesar  needed  much  himself 
at  this  period;  his  career  was  very  tortuous  at  this  time.  The 
deposed  candidates  were  without  hope,  therefore,  of  replen- 
ishing empty  coffers  with  the  spoil  of  proconsular  provinces. 
•Conviction  on  the  charge  of  Ambitus  usually  implied  financial 
ruin.  Both  men  were  destitute  and  impoverished  ;  in  the  case 
of  Autronius  it  was  especially  true. 

For  this^  reason  they  might  the  more  readily  enter  into  a 
conspiracy'  against  citizens  which  would  include  their  success- 
ful competitors,  Cotta  and  Torquatus.  the  newly  placed  con- 
suls, and  during  the  riot  they  might  assassinate  them,  seize 
the  fasces  and  maneuver  to  obtain  their  provinces  and  so  the 
money.  Apparently  Autronius  was  won  over  to  such 
argument. 

*Sall.  Cat.  XVIII,  Cic.  Pro  Sull.  V,  XXIV,  XXV,  Cicero  frequently  names 
Autronius  as  a  conspirator  both  in  the  lesser  and  greater  attempts.  He  later  defended 
Sulla  charged  with  complicity  in  the  great  conspiracy,  refusing  the  case  of  Autronius, 
who  repeatedly  requested  Cicero  to  be  his  patronus;  but  Cicero  believed  him  really 
guilty.      Pro.   Sull.   C.   6. 

«In  tog.  cand.  74.  Crassus  is  named  the  originator  of  the  plot.  IJvy  c.  Cl, 
Pro  Sull.  c.  24  sqq. 

«Under  Lex  Calpurnia  de  Ambitu  of  the  year  67  B.  C.  imposing  penalties  for 
bribery:  brought  forward  by  C.  Calpurnius  Piso  and  directed  against  the  buying  of 
votes.  Ambitus  is  an  illegal  process  which  came  to  be  a  defect  or  disease  in  the 
politics  of  ♦hat  age;  it  came  to  mean  electoral  corruption.  Few  men  in  that  period 
were  elected  without  it;  Cicero  was  one  of  the  few.  Lex  Calpurnia  was  passed  by 
the  consuls  themselves,  says  Dio,  and  stipulated  expulsion  forever  from  the  senate, 
and  from  any  office,  and  a  fine  to  be  imposed,  v.  In  tog.  cand.  79.  The  Lex 
Cornelia  de  Ambitu  of  Sulla's  time  (81-80  B.  C.)  had  not  been  quite  as  severe  as 
the  one  of  67  B.  C.  It  merely  expelled  for  10  years.  There  was  a  regular  court 
for    Ambitus,      v.    Mommsen.      Roemisches    Strafrecht. 


In  union  with  Autronius'  were  to  be  Catiline  and  Gneius 
Piso,"  a  young  patrician  of  most  daring  spirit,  in  need  and 
discontented.  His  poverty  and  vicious  principles  urged  him 
to  countenance  any  disturbance.  All  these  were  splendid 
tools  in  the  labor  of  undermining  the  foundations  of  ^he  state!' 
Piso  was  then  to  be  sent  with  an  army  to  take  possession  of 
the  two  Spains.'" 

Catiline  had  desired  to  be  a  candidate"  for  consul,  but  could 
not  present  himself  as  one  within  the  legitimate  number"  of 
days,  for  he  had  a  recent  blot  on  his  record;  he  was  under 
indictment  in  the  court  Repetundarum  for  malversation  as 
propraetor  in  Africa;"  and  for  this  reason  he  was  ineligible 
in  66  B.  C.  for  the  consulate  of  65  B.  C.  He  was  always  on 
the  ''Qui  vive"  for  riot,  usurpation,  murder,  proscription,  or 
any  infamous  act;  unless  he  died  or  there  was  a  revolution, 
his  trial  would  surely  come  off  in  65  B.  C.  He  does  not  work 
into  the  program  most  j)rominently  nor  assume  his  largest 
and  most  important  sphere  until  after  this  plot,  which  was 
scheduled  for  Jan.  i,  65  B.  C,  and  which  leaked  out  and  was 
not  carried  out.  It  is  recorded  some,  through  remorse  or 
fear,  did  not  keep  the  date  set  for  the  slaughter.  Tli^t  the 
matter  did  not  come  to  a  head  is  bad  for  the  historian ;  the 
time  for  it  was  most  favorable,  with  the  army  far  away,  with 
Pompey  warring  in  Pontus**  and  Armenia;  thus  there  was 
no  sufficient  force  at  Rome  to  suppress  a  revolution.  Surely 
the  idea  of  a  clever,  far-sighted  person.  The  concerted  meas-^ 
ures"  of  these  men  were  discovered  and  defeated,  due,  as  has 
been  said,  to  the  absence  from  his  assigned  post  of  one  of  the 
principals  who  was  to  give  the  impetus  to  the  whole  affain 
This  conspiracy  of  the  unsuccessful  candidates  is  given  in  a 
very  few  words  by  Livy." 

The  execution  of  the  design  was  then  postponed"  to  Feb- 
ruary 5th,  when  the  conspirators  considered"  the  destruction, 
not  only  of  consuls  but  of  the  senate  also.  On  that  date  too- 
there  was  a  hitch  in  the  operations.  Catiline  in  front  of  the 
senate  house  was  too  premature  in  giving  the  signal  to  his 
associates,  since  all  his  armed  fellow-conspirators  had  not  yet 
gathered  in  numbers^sufficient  to  warrant  an  attack.    The  lack 

^Sali.   Cat.   :HVIII,    Pro   Sull.   C.   24. 

«ln  tog.,  cand.  82,  8.3,  Cic.  Pro.  Mur.  C.  38,  Sail.  Cat.  XVIII,  Suet.  J.  Caes.  C.  12. 
Dio  does  not  relate. 

"Pro  Sull.  C.   24,   In   tog.   cand.   82,   83,    Sail.   Cat.   XIX. 

»<»Sall.  Cat.  XIX. 

"In  tog.  cand.  80. 

"Sail.  Cat.  XVIII. 

"In  tog.  cand.  76. 

"Plut.  Cic,  Floras  IV.  I,  Sal.  Cat.  XVT. 

"Sail.  Cat.  XVIII. 

"Livy  Cl,   Dio  36,  44. 


14 


15 


of  concerted  effort  defeated  his  purpose;  otherwise  there 
would  have  been  executed  the  most  atrocious  outrage  since 
the  founding  of  the  city.  Fortunately  the  plot  was  never  con- 
summated. Horrible  acts  would  have  ensued  if  it  had  been ! 
"Quod  ni  Catilina  .'  .  .  eo  dre  post  conditam  urbem 
Romam  pcssumum  facinus     .      .      ."" 

Does  not  this  whole  transaction  presage  the  danger  which 
within  three  years  threatened  to  overwhelm  the  common- 
wealth, and  for  preventing  which  Cicero  suffered,""  and  for 
which  heroism  he  has  been  abused  by  some  ancient  historians" 
and  some  more  modern  critics  P" 

The  aristocracy  let  the  whole  matter  pass  by.  Piso,  the 
Catiline  the  second,  the  little  Spanish  dagger/'  was  after- 
wards sent  as  quaestor  with  praetorian  authority  to  Spain, 
where  he  had  a  good  chance  to  fill  his  i)ockets.  According 
to  Sallust,  Crassus  promoted  this  appointment  because  he 
knew  him  to  be  a  bitter  enemy  to  Gneius  Pompey.  The  senate, 
too,  were  not  unwilling  to  grant  him  the  province,  for  they 
desired  so  infamous  a  man  to  be  removed  from  the  city. 
Some,  too,  thought  he  might  be  a  foil  against  the  power  of 
Pompey,  which  was  daily  growing.  On  Piso's  march  to  his 
j>rovince  the  provincials  could  not  endure  his  cruel,  unjust 
commands  and  harsh  treatment,  and  he  was  finally  murdered 
by  cavalrymen,  a  S])anish  native  escort,  once  under  Pompey. 
Some  declared  that  these  former  faithful  soldiers  of  Pompey 
attacked  Piso  with  Pompey's  approbation'*  and  at  his  instiga- 
tion, since  they  had  never  been  known  to  commit  such  out- 
rages and  were  usually  patient  under  severe  orders.  Sallust. 
however,  does  not  undertake  to  prove  the  assertions. 

Plutarch"  calls  Catiline  the  leader  in  the  conspiracy  of 
January  65  R.  C.  and  February  65  B.  C. — not  quite  accurately, 
however — the  real  leaders  were  Crassus"*"  and  Caesar ;  they 
fathered  the  plan  ;  they  were  the  powers  behind  the  move- 
ment :  Catiline  was  only  subsidiary  at  this  time,  although  he 
got  in  deep  in  trouble.  The  only  name  which  Plutarch  saw 
in  Tiroes  account  was  that  of  Catiline  because  it  was  the  only 
name  Cicero  cared  to  give  out.  Tiro  could  not  mention  the 
two  members  of  the  regency,  for  Cicero  at  the  time  Tiro  was 
accumulating  his  notes  for  the  biography  was  leaning  on  those 
dynasts  for  maintenance  of  life  and  property-.  However, 
there  were  those"  who  were  seeking  to  disturb  the  present 

"Livy  CI,  In   tog.  cand.   83,   Sail.  Cat.   XVIIT.   Mommsen. 

"Sail.  Cat.  XVIII. 

"Sal.  Cat.   XVIII. 

^'•Cic.   De  Domo,   In  Piso.,  Ad   Att.,   Phil.    11.   Pro  Cael. 

"Dio. 

-'Drumann.  Mommsen,  John,  etc. 

^»In   tog.  cand.   83,   Sail.   Cat.   XIX. 

•■2*In  tog.  cand.  83,   Sail.   Cat.   XIX. 


16 


{( 


situation  (i.  e.  period  approximately  between  67  B.  C.  and 
62  B.  C.)  to  incite"*  the  dissatisfied  to  commotion  for  the  sake 
of  private  benefits.'* 

"Plut.  Cic.  c.   10. 

^In  tog.  cand.   74,  82,   Sail.  Cat.  XLVIII.  XLIX. 

"Suet.  Vit.  J.  Caes.  I,  12,  Cic.  Phil.  II,  Plut.  Cic,   Sihler  Ann.  of  Caes.  c.  9. 

■•"'Plut.  Cic,   Flor.  IV,  I.  In  tog.  cand.  74,  8=2,   Ad  Att.  I,  2,  65  B.  C. 


V 

A  further  detail  about  that  trial  of  Catiline  for  abuse  of  the 
])rovincials  in  Africa,'  his  assignment  after  his  praetorship. 
Their  ambassadors  on  the  floor  of  the  senate  made  many 
serious  complaints"  against  him  while  he  was  yet  in  the 
j>rovince,  concerning  his  outrageous  conduct  in  office.  When 
Catiline  appeared,  an  investigation  was  already  on  regarding 
liis  government  there;  this  in  the  consulship  of  Torquatus 
.'•nd  Cotta. 

/  Publius  Clodius  Pulcher  brought  forward  these  charges  of 
/  l^^xlortion  ( Rei^etundarum)  (P.  Clodio  accusante  .  .  .).' 
There  is  a  question  as  to  who  was  Catiline's  counsel  at  that 
time.  There  are  those  w^ho  with  Fenestella  claim  that  Cati- 
line was  at  this  time  defended  on  that  charge  by  Cicero.  They 
l)ase  their  allegation  that  Cicero  entertained  the  idea  on  his 
own  words,  "Hoc  tempore  Catilinam  competitorem  nostrum 
defendere  cogitamus,'"  at  the  time  matters  were  actually  in 
|)rogress  and  Catiline  was  to  come  to  trial,  and  that  Cicero  as 
much  as  agreed  to  be  his  patronus  ;  also  that  he  wrote,  "Judices 
habemus,  quos  voluimus,  summa  accusatoris  voluntate.  Spero. 
si  absolutus  erit,  conjunctiorem  ilium  nobis  fore  in  ratione 
petitionis ;  sin  aliter  acciderit,  humaniter  feremus." 

It  would  appear  as  if  the  accuser  (P.  Clodius)  had  been  in 
collusion'  with  Catiline  and  had  had  conferences  as  to  what 
jurors  should  be  admitted,  i.  e.  he  exercised  his  right  of 
rejectio  (challenging)  against  such  jurors  as  w^ere  unfavor- 
ably disposed  to  the  accused ;  such  collusion  Avith  one's  oppo- 
nent was  called  ''praevaricatio." 

*ln  tog.  cand.  76,  79. 

=Pro.    Cael.   c.    4.      Indicted   in    66    P>.    C,    trial    in    6.S    K,    C. 

Hn  tog.  cand.  76,  Drumann  v.  Y,  uses  this  as  a  strong  factor  against  Cicero. 
Incidentally  it  may  be  noted  that  this  same  youth,  here  on  the  oflfensive  against 
Catilina,  when  later  seeking  vengeance  from  his  enemy  Cicero  for  his  own  supposed 
•vrongs,  takes  the  defensive  in  behalf  of  the  conspirators,  and  has  Cicero  banished 
for   executing   Roman    citizens   uncondemned. 

*Ad  Att.  I,  2,  i.  Pro  Sull.  Sec.  81.  In  Pro  Cael.  c  6,  Cicero  says  that  at  one 
lime  he  did  not  even  suspect  Catiline.  It  would  have  been  quite  natural  that  he 
hould  now  defend  Catiline  as  he  afterwards  defended  Fonteius.  Cicero's  way  to 
listinction  depended  upon  his  achieving  a  great  position  at  the  bar,  and  it  would 
lave  been  very  adverse  to  his  ultimate  chance  of  the  consulship  if  he  had  now 
ofused  to  undertake  important  cases.  The  time  came  when  Cicero  could  pick 
ind  choose    his    briefs   but   it    had   not   yet   arrived. 

'In  tog.  cand.  76.  Ad  Att.  I,  2,  letter  of  Aug.  65  B.  C. 

17 


Cicero  expresses  a  hope  that  if  Catiline  shall  be  acquitted 
that  he  shall  be  more  closely  associated  with  him  in  a  general 
plan  of  candidacy.  Those  confessions  of  Cicero,  while  they 
do  not  warrant  any  admiration,  would  have  made  his  act 
neither  immoral  nor  unprofessional.  However,  Cicero  aban- 
doned the  defence ;'  he  thought  better  of  it  no  doubt  as  a  thing 
indefensible,  and  his  better  judgment  made  him  drop  it.  This 
is  put  forward  by  the  detractors  of  Cicero  as  ])roof  that  he 
was  at  this  time  making  advances  toward  the  popular  party, 
but  Catiline  was  not  at  this  time  regarded  as  the  leader  of 
the  popular  party,  and  if  Cicero  had  defended  him,  he  would 
have  been  doing  nothing  at  all  politically  significant. 

Asconius,  who  closely  examined  the  records,  greatly  doubts, 
in  fact,  says  he  does  not  believe  Fenestella's^  assertion,  since 
Cicero  does  not  mention  this  prosecution  of  Clodius  against 
Catiline,  and  his  own  defence  of  the  case,  although  he  might 
have  used  it  to  excite  ill-will  against  a  rival  making  an  elec- 
tion pact  against  him ;  it  is  rendered  especially  clear  by  the 
fact  that  Cicero  in  the  very  same  speech  reproaches  his  other 
competitor,  Antonius,  with  some  slight  services  which  he  had 
done  him  in  his  candidature  for  the  praetorship  and  some 
his  benefits  derived  through  his  (Cicero's)  kindness.  In  tog. 
cand.  76. 

Asconius  fights  against  the  notion  of  Cicero  having  de- 
fended Catiline — "If  he  had  defended  Catiline,  would  he  not 
have  protected  him?" — if  it  were  only  a  short  time  ago  that 
Cicero  had  been  his  patronus  and  had  spoken  in  his  defense. 
In  tog.  cafnd.  76. 

The  argument  in  the  In  Toga  Candida  throughout  this  sec- 
tion is  splendid ! 

Is  it  then  creditable  that  if  Cicero  had  really  defended  Cati- 
line he  would  have  failed  to  twit  him  with  the  fact?  More- 
over, Asconius  pins  his  belief  on  the  fact,  also,  that  Cicero,  in 
attacking  Clodius'  later,  refers  to  this  case  as  he  would  not 
have,  if  he  had  been  a  party  to  it. 

Another  argument  that  contradicts  Drumann*s  position  that 
Cicero  undertook  the  case  is  found  in  the  De  Petitione  Con- 
sulatus'  in  which  Quintus  Cicero  urges  Marcus  Cicero  to 
read  repeatedly  (saepius  legito)  the  court  records  of  the  case 
now  over,  for  all  praetorian  court  records  could  be  read,  and 
if  Cicero  had  had  the  case  and  had  heard  all  the  affidavits, 
what  need  for  him  to  have  read  them  at  all?  Any  one  could 
take  the  case"  but  we  are  sure  Cicero  did  not ;  it  is  not  arguing 
from  sense,  says  Asconius.    If  he  had  defended  Catiline,  could 

"Was  not  Cicero  engaged  in  the  defenst-  of  Cornelius  about  this  time?     Asconius, 
Pro   Corn.,    Sihler   Cic.    of   Arp.    p.    118. 

'In   tog.   cand.    76.    Fenestella,   a    Roman    scholar,    who   flourished    about    14    A.    D. 
'Cic.  Harusp.  Respons.   Sec.  42. 
•De  Petit.  Cons.  c.  3. 


he  have  said  in  the  In  Toga  Candida,  "Miserable  man,  not  to 
see  that  by  that  verdict  you  were  not  acquitted  but  reserved 
for  a  more  serious  punishment?""  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Cicero 
did  not  defend  Catiline. 

But  Cicero  bemoans  the  ineffectual"  results  of  the  trial — 
if  such  it  can  be  called — for  Catiline  was  acquitted — if  acquit- 
tal it  must  be  named — through  smudge*;  although  the  senators 
found  him  guilty, — a  fact  which  angered  him  the  more  at 
them  and  in  his  later  designs  loomed  large, — the  equites  and 
iribuni  aerarii  acquitted  him.  "Nam  judicium  quoque  secutum 
est  repetundarum,  quo  ipse  per  infamiam  liberatus  est  Catilina, 
sed  ita  ut  senatorum  urna  damnaret,  equitum  et  tribunorum 
absolveret." 

Catiline  was  tried  late  in  the  summer  of  65  B.  C.  when 
'Cicero  intended  to  go  north  to  canvass  for  a  consulship  for 
the  year  6^  B.  C.  By  paying  an  enormous  sum  of  money  to 
the  prosecutor  Clodius,  Catiline  induced  Clodius  to  queer 
(praevaricare)  or  throw  his  own  prosecution  or  defence,  so 
as  to  lose  it.  The  jurors,  too,  had  to  be  bribed."  Some  left  the 
trial  because  no  money  was  to  be  had.  We  can  from  these 
two  incidents  alone,  conceive  an  idea  of  Catiline's  gigantic 
need  for  money.  He  left  that  trial  absolutely  destitute- 
worse  than  a  pauper— (egestas).  He  was  reduced  to  poverty 
in  the  gratification  of  his  ambition,  but  withal  was  courted  by 
men  and  women  of  power  and  position." 

"Pro  Sull.   Sec.   81,   In   tog.  cand.   76. 
"In  tog.  cand.  77,  78. 
"In  tog.  cand.    78,  80. 

*»In  tog.  cand.  80,   De  Harusp.   Respons.    Sec.   42. 

"App.    Rell.    Civ.   II,   2.    In   tog.    cand.    74.   Pro.   Cael.   c.    6.      He   had    a   charm   to 
attract  men. 


VI 

That  the  economic  basis  during  these  years  was  desperately' 
bad  and  this  condition  widespread  is  attested  also  by  Sallust, 
who  in  this  matter  is  probably  free  from  rhetorical  effect  and 
assumptions  and  gives  us  the  truth  unadorned.  His  general 
description'  does  not  refer  to  63  B.  C.  only  but  likewise  to  a 
few  years  preceding.  It  was  universal  debt — mark  it  well — 
debt  caused  by  unlimited  indulgence,  which  was  the  root  of 
this  whole  Catilinarian  evil :  debt,  vast  in  Italy,  and,  Sallust 
emphasizes,  in  the  whole  world. 

Scattered  throughout  Italy  were  Sulla's  veterans  who  had 
squandered  too  lavishly  their  ill-gotten  gains ;  with  them  com- 
l)ined  the  spendthrifts,  whose  funds  were  always  "nil."  All 
classes'  who  had  the  same  motives  and  necessities  banded 
together.  It  was  then  that  Catiline  resolved  to  overwhelm 
the  state.  Does  not  the  defense  of  the  view  of  Mommsen  and  his 


18 


19 


school  fall  to  the  ground  in  the  face  of  such  facts — an  argu- 
ment which  claims  that  the  peril  was  not  as  great  as  Cicero 
portrays  it?* 

Cicero's  own  colleague  in  the  consulship,  Antonius,  bid  fair 
to  membership  in  the  insolvent  class  before  his  election.  He 
was  almost  bankrupt  and  was  liquidating  himself,  his  affairs 
were  so  to  speak  in  the  sherilY's  hands ;  matters  were  not 
yet  adjusted ;  they  were  still  in  the  process  of  settlement. 
Antonius  was  really  very  hard  pressed  for  cash ;'  he  hated 
his  own  shadow,  fearful  that  it  was  someone  requesting  a 
payment.  It  was  a  terrible  social  disgrace  if  one  were  not 
able  to  meet  one's  financial  obligations,  no  matter  what  the 
reason — whether  due  to  vice,  mismanagement,  or  misfortune. 
Antonius  had  once  given  out  contracts'  for  race  horses ;  it  was 
not  good  form  for  a  senator  to  do  so,  nevertheless.  He  had 
also  driven  a  chariot  in  Sulla's  triumph.. 

Moreover,  bankruptcy  and  insolvency  were  a  disqualifica- 
tion for  office.  A  senator,  too,  who  was  impoverished,  auto- 
matically dropped  out  of  the  senate  or  was  eliminated  by  the 
censor.  Therefore  Antonius,  who  was  bidding  for  the  consul- 
ship, auctioned'  off  all  his  ])astures  in  South  Italy  and  parted 
with  all  his  stock  for  a  financial  consideration,  retaining  only 
his  slaves  in  order  to  have  a  following,,  should  he  ever  require 
their  aid  in  an  uprising.  Therefore,  Macedon'  in  62  B.  C. 
promised  to  be  a  welcome  province  for  the  proconsul  to 
rehabilitate  his  fortunes. 

The  agreement'  had  been  made  between  the  two  consuls. 
Cicero  and  Antonius,  probably  before  their  entrance  uj^on 
their  duties  at  the  first  of  the  year  63  B.  C,  and  at  the  former's 
suggestion,  that  the  province,  which  by  recourse  to  the  lots, — 
by  which  assignment  of  proconsular  provinces  was  usually 
determined. — had  come  to  Cicero,  would  be  resigned 
and  Antonius  might  have*"  that  lucrative  one  of  Macedon. 
The  role  of  Antonius  in  this  pact  was  to  preserve  loyalty 
toward  his  colleague  during  their  tenure  of  office  that  year 
(63  B.  C).  Tn  addition,  on  the  day  of  his  installation"  as 
consul,  Cicero  renounced  all  claim,  as  proconsul,  to  any  advan- 
tage or  any  province"  whatever,  although  Gaul,  which  he  had 
taken  in  exchange  from  Antonius,  was  most  desirable  and 
well  equipped.  The  people  objected  to  his  not  having  his 
honor,  but  he  thought  it  advantageous  to  the  republic  at  that 
time  not  to  accept  the  proconsulate. 

It  is  absolutely  incorrect"  to  say  Cicero  wished  to  stav  in 
Rome  because  of  his  law  practice.     Dio  does  not  give  credit 

XVI. 


»Suet.   Vit.  J.   Caes.,   Sail.   Cat. 

2Cat.   I,  31.   Flor.    III.    12. 

«Pio   Mur.    c.    25,    Sail.    Cat.    XVIl.    In 

*Cic.  Cat.  II,  Sail.  Cat.  XVII. 

"De  Petit.  Cons.  c.  2. 

"In   toj?!  cand.    79.   83. 


Piso.    c.    2. 


to  Cicero's  nobler  motive  at  all.  Dio  seemingly  does  not  care 
if  he  has  facts  upon  which  to  base  or  not  in  assigning  a  motive. 
He  pragmatizes. 

Cicero  tells  us  that  by  patience  and  calm  conduct  he  woa'* 
over  his  colleague,  eager  for  a  province,  and  harboring"  many 
thoughts  injurious  to  the  state.  Throughout  their  year  of 
administration  the  negative  character  of  Antonius  was  sub- 
servient to  the  stronger  one  near  him.  Cicero  was  virtually 
the  head  of  that  government  during  that  term;  Antonius 
seems  not  to  have  presided. 

^In   tog.   cand.    78. 

opiut.  Cic.  c.   12,   Sail.  Cat.  XXVI. 

"In   Piso.  c.  2. 

^«In   Piso.  c.  2,   25.     Yr.63   B.   C.    Sail.   Cat.    XXVI. 

"De  leg.   agrar.   I,    25,   26. 

'=In  Piso.  c.  2. 

'^Dio  33. 

"In   Piso.  c.   2,   Pro   Cad.    31,    Sal).   Cat.   XXII,   XX\I. 

'•■'Pro    Cacl.   c.    31. 


20 


VII 

Catiline  sued  for  the  consulship  in  64  B.  C.  The  consulate 
in  his  design  was  merely  a  stepping  stone/  an  expectation  to 
go  forward  to  autocratic  power ;  he  was  desirous  of  procuring 
a  strong  position  to  carry  on  his  designs.  He  wished  to  be 
a  second'  Sulla  with  this  difference;  we  read  nowhere  that 
Catiline  had  imputed  to  him  any  motive  for  gaining  the 
sui)reme  oflfice  in  Rome— whether  by  fair  means  or  foul— 
except  that  ever  present  one  of  freeing  himself  and  his  asso- 
ciates from  debt  and  enriching  all.  Sulla  at  least  made  some 
improvements;'  Catiline  entertained  no  policy  of  reform.  He 
intended  to  use  his  ofHce  for  a  general  upheaval.  The  majority 
of  honorable  citizens  appreciated  this,  for  Rome  was  in  a 
dangerous  condition,  ripe  for  change.*  The  seething  mass  of 
discontented  were  inclined  for  any  eruption.  They  were  dis- 
>atKsfied  at  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth  and  propertv - 
"r,  if  of  a  higher  social  rank,  had  impoverished  themselves 
through  magnificent  display.  It  needed  only  a  slight  tremor 
to  put  all  into  motion;  any  recklessly  venturesome  person 
might  easily  accomplish  such  purpose. 

Catiline  confidently  expected  to  be  elected*  and  had  great 
lopes  of  being  appointed  with  Gains  Antonius"  as  his  col- 
league. The  suspicion  of  his  ulterior  purposes  caused  his 
defeat  and  really  elected^  Cicero,  whom  the  people  readilv 
received  although  he  was  descended  from  a  father  of  th'e 
equestrian  and  not  of  the  senatorial  order.  The  chiefs  of  the 
j^tate  had  always  thwarted  Catiline's  every  move  to  present 
him.self,  even  as  in  66  R.  C.    The  senatorial  party  had  deprived" 

21 


/I 


him  of  a  magistrate's  dignity  as  a  result  of  his  guilt  in  the 
trial  Repetundarum.  The  knights  held  against  him  his 
participation  m  the  Sullan  proscriptions  The  plebs  always 
looked  upon  him  with  a  shudder  for  his  cruelties.  Every  class 
was  against  him.  Why  his  boldness  to  stand  for  office?  He 
relied  upon  his  aristocratic  birth  to  win  him  his  object. 

»Plut.  Cic.  c.  XI. 

•-■Cat.    II,   c.   9,   etc.      App.    Hell.   Civ.    II.  '2. 

^Especially  court  reforms, 

^Plut.   Cic.   c.   XI. 

'Pro  Mur.  c.  2.1,  24,  25,  App.  IJell.  Civ.,  Pint.  Cic.  XI,  In  tog.  cand.  >9,  Sail. 
Cat.   XXVI. 

•**A  man  able  to  lead  n^'ither  in  a  good  cause  nor  a  bad  one  but  a  valuable 
■addition  to  another's   power."      Pint.   Cic.      .\lso  In    tog.   cand.    Arguni.,    74. 

^In    tog.    cand.    84,    Pint.    Cic.    c.    XT.  w 

*ln    tog   cand.    80. 


VIII 

Election  by  bribery,'  always  bad,  was  daily  increasing  and 
^becoming  so  irksome  that  Cicero  brought  forward  a  proposal' 
to  make  sharper  the  punishment  therefor. 

Probably  urged  by  Crassus'  and  Caesar,  both  later  of  the 
triumvirate,  Q.  Mucins  Orestinus  tr.  pi.  (tribunus  plebis) 
vetoed  this  bill  to  increase  the  penalty  for  violation  of  the  law 
of  Ambitus,  and  the  veto  of  this  measure  carried.  It  w^as  then 
that  Cicero  inveighed  (In  Toga  Candida)  against  Antonius 
■and  Catiline,  the  chief  offenders,  for  their  coalition  to  keep 
him  out  of  the  consulship.  He  also  charged  that  Crassus  was 
the  originator*  of  the  scheme  to  keep  him  out  of  the  election. 
Cicero  knew  a  few  days  before  the  election  who  were  the 
big  factors  opposed  to  him,  namely  Crassus,  the  richest  man 
in  Rome,  the  greatest  financier  of  his  day,  seeking  to  make 
liimself  influential ;  and  Caesar,  head  of  the  populares. 
Antonius  and  Catiline  were  financilly  set  up  by  these  two 
politicians.  Cicero  tells  us  that  his  two  chief  rivals  in  connec- 
tirxn  with  their  union  of  purpose  had  intimacy  with  men  promi- 
nent" in  public  life.  The  two  candidates  with  their  main 
adherents  had  met  a  few  days  before  (the  Comitia  of  64  B.  C. 
were  to  be  held  in  a  very  few  days)  at  the  home  of  either 
Crassus  or  Caesar;  these  two  powerful  men  so  keen  for 
Cicero's  defeat  were  bitterly  opposed  to  him  because  thev 
observed  he  was  daily  growing  in  influence  and  if  he  gained 

*In  tog.  cand.  74,  79. 

*Lex  Tullia  de  Ambitu  adding  10  years  exile  to  previous  law  (Lex  Calpurnia). 
T)io  credits  the  added  severity  to  the  law  of  Ambitus  as  the  reason  for  the  conspiracy 
»(37,   29).      Sail.    Cat.   c.    15   assigns  another   reason    for   the   itiception    of   that   plot. 

'In  tog.  cand.  74. 

*In   tog.   cand.   74. 

'Plut.   Cic.   II,  In   tog.   cand.    74. 


22 


the  highest  position  they   realized  a  man  so  eloquent  could 
block    anything.      They    therefore    aided     and     abetted     his 
'opponents. 

Erom  this  speech,  s])ontaneous  as  was  the  first  oration 
against  Catiline  later,  we  glean  data  on  the  former  lives  of 
Antonius  and  Catiline.  The  views  of  Catiline,  who  is  far  ahead 
in  importance  in  crime,  are  more  numerous,  about  four  to 
one  of  Antonius  ;  none  are  particularly  pleasing  pictures. 

If  we  were  to  confine  ourselves  to  only  the  In  Toga  Candida 
of  Marcus  TuUius  Cicero  and  the  De  Petitione  Consulatus  by 
Quintus  Cicero,  we  would  still  have  abundance  of  material  to 
form  a  basis  for  a  conception  of  the  dangers  of  the  age.  There 
is  some  grain  of  truth  in  the  matter  there  given. 

It  is  Cicero's  conception  that  if  Antonius  and  Catiline  were 
elected  it  would  place  two  assassins  (duas  sicas^ — two  daggers) 
into  the  consular  chairs  for  there  were  really  only  three  candi- 
dates' worthy  of  mention.  But  Catiline  and  Antonius  needed 
the  office  badly  for  the  benefit  of  the  provinces  which  came 
later.  This  speech  (In  Tog.  Cand.)  called  forth  a  most  bitter 
attack  upon  Cicero  by  both  Catiline  and  Antonius,  who  in  their 
rejoinder  scoffed  at  his  "Novitas,"  i.  e.  his  prominence  gained 
through  his  own  efiforts  without  the  backing  of  an  aristo- 
cratic pedigree,  an  ''upstart"  so  to  speak.  Another  term  of 
contumely  which  they  hurled  at  him  was  'Tnquilinus,"  i.  e. 
man  who  is  a  renter  (Sail.  XXXI),  or  transferred  meaning. 
"A  man  who  was  not  born  in  Rome."  All  this  invective  did 
not  prevent  the  "Homo  Novus'"  from  being  unanimously 
elected  consul,  with  his  colleague  Antonius  winning  ove'i 
Catiline  by  only  a  few  votes."  It  may  be  added  that  the 
"obscure  renter"  became  possessor  of  several  villas  ere  his 
untimely  death  closed  a  most  varied  and  interesting  career. 

*In   tog.   cand.    83. 

^The     others     were     practically     out     of     the     running.        In      tog.     cand.     Argum. 

hi   quattuor  jaccbant." 
"Man   without   ancestry.      Sail.   Cat.    XXIV. 
'•*In   tog.  cand.  84.      Declared  first  consul  by  all.     In  Pis.  c.    1. 


IX 

Here  must  be  introduced  Catiline's  trial  for  murder  com- 
mitted during  Sulla's  regime.'  At  the  time  of  the  election 
Catiline  had  not  yet  been  brought  before  the  court.  After 
the  Comitia  of  64  B.  C.  had  declared  him  unsuccessful  he  was 
brought  before  the  special  court  Tnter  Sicarios'  (murder 
cases)  as  defendant  against  the  charge  of  L.  Lucceius,'  later 
a  consul. 

The  judge  of  this  special  court,'  which  passed  decision  on 
the  murder  cases  under  Sulla,  was  Caesar.  He  presided  as 
Quaesitor  Extraordinarius ;  he  was  not  yet  praetor.     Notice 


2Z 


should  be  taken  how  inconsistent  and  unfair  Caesar  was  in 
dealing  with  the  different  criminals. 

Cicero  says  that  L.  Luscius,  a  centurion,  who  was  enriched 
by  the  Sullan  harvest,  was  condemned  before  this  commis- 
sion for  killing  proscribed  citizens,  as  were  other  executioners 
under  Sulla,  but  that  Catiline,  the  most  infamous,  and  guilty 
of  the  same  charge,  was  acquitted  not  much  later.  Even  an 
uncle  of  Catiline,  Bellienus'  by  name,  is  said  to  have  been 
condemned  about  this  same  time.  This  inconsistency  brings 
to  mind  also  the  'VBona  Dea"  episode  of  62  B.  C,  after  which 
Caesar's  wife''  was  punished  at  his  instigation,  but  Clodius 
accjuitted. 

This  acquittal*  of  Catiline  means  much ;  it  was  jirobably 
the  important  step  in  the  series  which  led  to  the  great  climax. 
This  decision  of  Caesar  that  Catiline  was  ''Not  guilty"  is 
an  important  chapter  in  the  story.  If  Catiline  had  been  found 
"Guilty,"  Cicero's  consulship  would  have  been  calm,  for 
Catiline  would  not  have  run  for  the  consulship  for  62  B.  C. : 
he  would  not  have  been  wiped  off  the  board,  he  simply  would 
not  ever  have  had  a  place  on  it.  But  Caesar  and  Crassus  had 
use  for  Catiline.^ 

M)io  3,7,   ]().   In   tog.   cand.   75,  80. 

-v,    c.    Ill    of    this   dissertation;    In    tog.    cand.    81. 

•'In  tog.  cand.  All  the  other  courts  were  full;  therefore  the  organization  of  this 
special   one. 

*In  tog.  cand.   81. 

"Caesar  divorced  his  wife  after  this  scandal,  for  according  to  himself,  even 
though  she  were  guiltless,  no  taint  of  shame  must  smirch  Caesar's  name. 

•In  tog.   cand.   81,  also  c   II   of   this  thesis. 

'In  tog.  cand.  74,  also  Mommsen. 


X 

Certain  preludes  to  the  Catiliiiarian  affair  met  Ciccro"s  con- 
sulate. What  we  know  is  found  in  Die  Cassius  37,  27,  who 
obtained  his  material  from  Livy.  Cicero's  induction  into  his 
consulship  was  immediately  followed  by  many  preliminary 
troubles,  which  for  the  time,  effaced  Catiline  as  chief  object 
of  attention,  although  his  aspirations  were  not  yet  j;:enerally 
known. 

One  of  the  most  important  preludes  was  the  problem  of 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  sons  of  those  proscribed  in  81  B.  C, 
when  fathers  were  exiled,  their  fortunes  lost,  but  worse  fate, 
their  sons  also  disfranchised, — this  was  most  cruel  of  Sulla. 
This  considerable  number  of  those  disqualified  by  the  laws 
of  Sulla  from  holding-  public  offices,  now  began  to  present 
themselves  as  candidates.  By  their  demagogical  methods  they 
tended  to  excite  the  populace  by  their  just,  although  untimely, 
censure  of  Sulla's  tyranny,  and  caused  turbulent  disorder  in 
the  government. 


A  colleague  of  Rullus  proposed  a  special  law  to  re-iustate 
ihese.  From  Liceros  opposition'  to  this  bill  we  gain  a  con- 
ception of  the  unrest  of  the  times;  for  Cicero  had  the  idea 
that  It  was  not  a  good  season  when  any  matter  that  was 
settled  should  become  unsettled.  Such  then  was  Cicero's  view 
of  the  social  discontent;  Cicero  feared  an  uprising:  therefore 
lie  desired  as  little  else  of  disturbance.  The  change'  in  gov- 
.rnment  instituted  by  Sulla  which  at  first  seemed  without 
reason  had  111  time  and  by  usage  come  to  be  considered  by 
the  peoi)lc  as  no  unsatisfactory  settlement 

Also  Rullus  himself,  the  other  tribune,  proposed  a  measure 
;.I)pointing  a  commission  of  ten  with  unlimited  authority 
who  should  be  vested  with  power  to  sell  all  public  lands  of 
Italy  an<l  in  all  provinces,  even  in  Syria  and  Pompev's  newly 
conquered  domains ;  they  were  really  to  establish  'a  rule  of 
autocratic  power.  Plutarch  says  they  were  too  to  pa.ss  jude- 
nient  upon  and  banish  whom  they  pleased;  thev  were  to 
establish  colonies :  have  free  access  to  the  treasury ;  levy  and 
pay  whatever  soldiery  was  deemed  essential.  These  last  i)ro- 
yisions  were  probably  not  in  the  law  or  Cicero  would  not  have 
Orgotten  to  mention  them  in  his  speech'  i„  opposition  to  that 
lavv.  Several  of  the  nobility  favored  this  bill  but  especially 
Antonms,  the  colleague  of  Cicero,  who  hoped  to  be  one  of  the 
en.  The  nobles  distru.sted  him  particularly  because  they 
Uiought  him  cognizant  of.  and  favorable  to.' the  design.s  of 
Catiline,  because  of  his  (Antonius')  heavy  indebtedness.  How- 
ever Plutarch  IS  probably  again  incorrect  on  this  point  for 
Cicero  and  Antonius  had  made  their  pact  concerning  procon- 

pl;V.rT'"'rr  "■'  *'''u'  "-^'r^^'^  there  is  doubt  concerning 
Plutarch  s  statement  that  Antonius  worked  for  the  law  and 
then  received  pay.  Moreover,  he  has  been  telling  of  events  of 
R  r  ^•.  ^"^'  t'le"  .jumps  back  to  the  spring  or  summer  of  64 
B.  C.  when  Antonius  because  of  his  debts  was  not  ill-pleased 
to  be  assured  of  a  rich  province  (Macedon)  at  the  expiration 
of  his  consulship.     Dio,  too.  is  not  exact ;  .\ntonius  did  not 

A  T\      .      ^  choice  of  provinces  for  their  proconsular  vear 
.iiifl  Antonius  was  now  no  longer  a  factor.* 

'Oiu.  of  till-   lost   speeclics.      Dc   Proscript.    Liberia 

'Plut.  (ic.  c.  XI,   Flor.   I\-,  1. 

'He  I.fR.   agrar. 

'Plut.  Tic.  XII.  Sal.  Cat.  XXVI. 


XI 

Catiline  is  de.scribed  in  Appian'  as  a  person  of  imoortince 
'>f  great  celebrity,  and  high  birth,  but  a  mad  man-'^pStos' 

aT^rSn^iS^ilr-  ''■^""'^"^  *'^'"'^'  --■'"^  -'^''---^ 


24 


25 


It 


The  enormity  of  his  acts  bears  out  such  descriptions.  He 
hesitated  at  no  crime  when  his  desire  was  to  be  satisfied,  even 
though  it  included  murder  in  his  own  home.  He  was  finally 
seized  with  a  passion  for  Aurelia  Orestilla,"  whose  reputation 
was  such  that  no  good  man  at  any  time  commended  anything 
but  her  beauty.  Because  she  had  a  dread  of  having  a  growni 
up  step-son,  she  was  unwilling  to  marry  Catiline,  who  it  is 
confidently  believed  therefore  cleared  his  house  for  his  rnar- 
riage  by  putting  to  death  his  own  son.  Sallust  however  gives 
no  proof  of  this  atrocity ;  he  assumes  it  is  true,  and  assigns  the 
crime  in  his  belief  as  the  chief  reason  for  pushing  forward 
the  conspiracy,  because  his  guilty  mind  gave  him  no  rest; 
which  Sallust  deduces  from  the  fact  that  his  complexion, 
expression,  and  mien  were  not  those  of  one  whose  conscience 
was  free  from  crime.  Sallust,  copying  from  Cicero,  inserts 
this  description  in  the  incorrect  place.' 

However,  did  he  have  a  conscience  after  his  SuUan  exploits? 
His  training  as  the  w^ard,  friend,  and  zealous  partisan  of  Sulla,' 
as  one  who  brought  in  heads  for  a  stipulated  sum,  well  fitted 
him  to  commit  such  murder,  however  weak  his  motive. 

Long'  characterizes  Sallust's  assumptions  as  based  on  no 
proof,  sometimes  disi)laying  his  incapacity  to  do  \vhat  he  had 
undertaken — i.  e.  as  a  contemporary  writer  to  record  a  history 
of  what  he  considered  a  memorable  attempt  to  force  a  revo- 
lution. 

That  one  who  was  a  patrician  and  descended  from  a  most 
ancient  family  should  engage*  in  so  notorious  a  design  may 
seem  strange,  but  is  really  of  small  consideration,  for  behold 
the  old  Roman  names  that  follow  in  his  wake:  Sullae^  Curii, 
Porcii.  Cethegi,  Antonii.  Varguntei,  Longini,  all  names  of 
illustrious  men,  former  ornaments  of  the  senate,  but  now 
representing  accomplices  in  a  nefarious  undertaking.'  Nor 
must  Lentulus"  be  omitted,  from  whom,  and  some  sav  also 
from  the  consul,''  he  had  the  heartiest  co-operation"  in  Rome. 
Lentulus.  because  of  his  vile  life,  had  been  expelled  from  the 
senate.  70  B.  C,  and  had  now  been  elected  praetor"  that  he 
might  again  gain  senatorial  rank. 

All  these  members  of  senatorial  and  equestrian  orders, 
Catiline  had  as  supporters  in  his  horrid  attempt."  Joined  with 
these  aristocrats  w^ere  some  of  the  lowest  characters"  in  Rome, 
and  those  alw^ays  eager  for  a  revolution,  besides  some  colon- 
ists, to  whom  he  held  forth  the  promises  of  cancellation  of 
debts,  re-assie:nments  of  land,  and  all  else  by  which  he  could 
best  attract  them.     As  a  pledge  to  unite  them  in  the  plot,  he 

*App.   Bell   Civ.   II,  2.     All  the  codices  say   Gaius  Catilina.     The   Latin  version   of 
Candidas  pays  Lucius. 

2Sall.   Cat.  c.   XV,   App.   Bell.   Civ.  II.   1,  Cic.  Cat.   I,   Sec.   17. 

3Pro  Mur.  c.  24,  Sail.  Cat.  c.  XV,  App.  Bell.  Civ.  II,  1. 

*x\pp.  Bell.  Civ.   II,  2,  Plut.   SuU.,  In  tog.  cand.  75,   78,   De  Pet.  Cons.  c.  2. 

'Long,  Ci.  L.,   Pc'cline  of  the  Rom.  Rcpub.,   Sal.  Cat.   c.   XV. 

26 


16 


obliged  the  most  prominent  and  most  powerful"— among 
whom  Antonius,  the  consul,  was  incorrectly  included  by  some 
liistorians,  to  take  an  oath  in  an  unholy  manner.  Florus' 
records  human  blood  w^as  introduced,  which  they  drank.  Dio 
goes  further,  and  worse,  and  says  that  a  boy  was  sacrificed, 
and  the  oath  of  allegiance  administered  by  Catiline,  who  in 
company  with  his  companions  then  tasted  of  the  flesh. 

All  these  abandoned"  citizens  got  together  in  clandestine 
meetings  and  prepared  most  miserable  ruin  for  the  country. 

Once  more  it  seemed  an  opportune  time  for' an  outbreak 
since  Pompey  was  still  in  the  east,  remote  from  Rome,  and 
in  Italy  there  was  no  sufficient  army;  again  the  senate  was 
exercising  no  special  vigilance.  The  senatorial  body,  the  citv. 
the  treasury,  the  consulate,  the  government,  all  objects  for 
future  destruction  or  plunder  or  subjugation  seemed  in  prime 
condition  for  this  direful  undertaking.  There  seemed  no  wxak 
link  in  the  chain.  But  they  reckoned  without  just  one  factor, 
stronger  than  they,— the  vigilance  of  a  faithful  custodian  of 
the  government  wdio  detected  their  later  notorious  crime. 

«Florus  IV,   1. 

'Sail,  adds  Caes.  &  Crass.,  Flor.   IV,   1,   Cat.   I,  Veil.   II,   34. 
sPro  Sull.  c.   11,  c.   19,   Ad  Att.  2,   1,  3,   Dio  30,  29. 
•Pro  Cael.  c.  31,  Sail.  Cat.  XXII,  XXVI,  In  Pis.  c.  2. 
"Dio   30,   29. 

"Cat.,    Sail.    Cat.    makes   Lentulus   of   consular   rank, 
consul. 

"Flor.  IV,  1.  Veil.  11.  34,  35. 
"Dio  30,   29. 

"In    Dio  37-29,    In   Piso.   c.   2— Pro   Cael.   c.   31,   .Sail.   Cat.   XXII,   XX Vf 
'«Flor.    IV,   1. 
"Dio   30-29. 
"Pro   Sull.   c.    11. 


A   mistake:    he    never   was 


1 


XH 


Although  Catiline  had  escaped  the  attention  of  the  general 
public  because  of  the  interest  in  the  problems  of  the  earlier 
period  of  Cicero's  consulship,  Cicero  nevertheless  from  the 
first  day  that  he,  as  highest  official  in  the  government,  had 
the  authority  to  use  public  funds  for  state  business,  engaged 
Fulvia,'  the  mistress  of  Quintus  Curius,  to  report  to  him  all 
information  relative  to  Catiline's  moves  which  she  drew  out  of 
Curius,  a  well-known  gambler,'  and  one  of  Catiline's  coterie. 
These  designs  while  still  secret  were  thus  communicated  to 
Cicero.  This  Fulvia  kept  her  counsel  from  her  lover  con- 
cerning Cicero's  interest  in  the  news  of  the  meetings  which 
Curius  attended  and  the  projects  there  discussed.  It  was  she 
who  revealed  the  atrocious  project,  for  she  was  unwilling  to 
be  guilty  of  treason."  Both  Fulvia  and  Curius  profited  by  the 
money  paid  to  Fulvia  as  a  detective  for  the  state.     Curius^ 

27 


had  a  certain  eminence  among  those  of  the  decadentis  of  that 
period.  He  later  turned  state's  evidence*  in  the  trial  and  was 
one  of  the  informers  against  Caesar,  when  the  personnel  of 
the  body  of  the  conspirators  was  under  discussion  and 
investigation. 

Dio'  would  have  us  believe  that  Cicero  had  quite  a  number 
of  detectives  investigating.  That  is  inaccurate ;  he  had  Fulvia 
and  her  lover  who  acquainted  him  with  Catiline's  designs, 
whether  of  personal  attacks  or  governmental  disorders.  It 
is  only  later  that  the  Allobroges"  figure  as  informers. 

Through  his  informant,  plots  were  disclosed  to  Cicero 
which  endangered  all.  Therefore  on  October  2ist,  the  senate 
assembled  to  confer,  and  in  Catiline's  presence  the  plots  were 
exposed.  The  senate  then  charged  the  consuls  to  deliberate 
for  the  welfare  of  the  state,  clothing  them  with  the  power  to 
use  martial  law,'  the  maximum  power  allowed  a  magistrate. 

Catiline  had  been  retained  under  private  arrest  at  the  home 
of  Metellus,  but  managed  to  send  notice  to  his  associates  t(» 
meet  at  Laeca's  home,  and  he  escaped  Metellus'  vigilance  and 
went  to  the  meeting. 

Meanwhile  the  Manlian  camp  at  Faesulae  in  Etruria  had 
already  been  established,  armed  against  the  republic.  Catiline, 
during  the  night  between  Nov.  6-7th,  met  his  partisans  at 
the  home  of  M.  Laeca,  as  has  been  said ;  there  leaders  were 
chosen,  work  assigned,  and  agents  appointed  to  slay  Cicero, 
who,  forewarned,  refused  them  admittance  next  morning.' 
Pro.  Sull.  c.  i8. 

*Cat.  I,  4,  Sail.  Cat.  XXIII.  Curius  had  been  promising  Fulvia  wonderful 
possessions,  vainly  boasting  that  he  would  soon  be  in  a  position  of  great  power. 
Thus  leaked  out  hints  of  the  conspiracy  on  foot.  Not  many  informers  as  Dio 
pragmatizes  37,   33,   App.    Ilcll.    Civ.   II.    Sail.    Cat.   XXVI,   XXVIIT. 

2In  tog.  cand.  83,  84. 

'Sail.  Cat.  XXIII  and  Plut.  Cic.  call  her  a  lady  of  nobility.  Florus  IV-1  calls 
her    a    low    creature. 

*App.   Bell.   Civ.,  V.   also  c.   XVII,   &  XTX   of  this  thesis. 

»Dio   37,   33. 

«Cat.   Ill,  Sail.  Cat.   XLIV. 

TSall.  Cat.  XXIX. 

*Sall.  Cat.  XXIII,  Cic,  Cat.  I,  4,  Gat.  I,  10,  names  \'argunteius  (a  senator)  and 
C.  Cornelius  (a  knight);  .Sail.  Cat.  reports  the  same;  .App.  Bell.  Civ.  II,  3,  designates 
the  assassins  to  be  as  Lcntulus  and  Cethegus  when  Catiline  has  departed.  Plut. 
XVI   records  Cethegus   and   Marcius;   see   Schwartz-Hcrmi-s. 


XIII 

On  Nov.  8th,  the  senatorial  assembly,  for  greater  protection, 
met  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Stator,  where  was  delivered  that 
extemporaneous,  scathing  denunciation  of  Catiline  upon  his 
bold  appearance  at  that  meeting,  contrary  to  all  expectation. 
Cicero's  spirit  was  aroused  at  his  efTrontery.  A  resume  of  the 
Catilinarian  I  follows  :* 


28 


Cicero  harangues  Catiline  severely;  mentions  the  fate  of 
previous  revolutionists;  and  bemoans'  the  remissness  of  the 
consuls  of  his  own  consulship,  namely  Antonius  and  himself. 
Cicero  then  states  his  reasons  for  his  leniency  up  to  this  date 
and  makes  it  plain  to  Catiline  that  he  is  fully  awdre  of  his 
movements,  since  he  has  received  full  information  to  that 
effect.'  He  urges  Catiline  to  leave  the  city  at  once  and  join 
Manlius,'  for  he  has  incurred  the  hatred  of  all  citizens  because 
of  his  career  of  crime.  In  a  speech  spoken  in  55  B.  C,  Cicero, 
in  referring  to  this  period  of  his  career,  says,  'T  bade  Catiline 
.  .  .  planning  to  leave  the  city,  to  go,  in  order  that  we 
could  be  safe."" 

In  Cat.  I,  7,  Cicero  expresses  the  sentiments  of  Catiline's 
fellow  members  of  the  senate  toward  Catiline,  and  the  verdict 
of  the  state.  He  then  discusses  Catiline's  own  proposal  to 
place  himself  in  custody,"  and  the  very  evident  judgment  of 
the  senate  concerning  him. 

Cicero  realizes  the  uselessness  of  pleading  with  Catiline  for 
a  change  of  conduct  and  narrates  some  details  of  the  low  life 
to  which  Catiline,  a  member  of  a  patrician  family,  has  fallen. 

Cicero  has  thus  far  shown  forcbearance  because  he  desired 
all  citizens  to  be  convinced  of  the  nature  of  the  conspiracy, 
for  only  then  would  the  state  realize  the  necessity  for  defeat- 
ing not  only  Catiline  l)Ut  the  whole  conspiracy,'  and  cease 
to  be  inactive. 

In  the  peroration  of  the  first  oration,  Cicero's  speech  is  in 
reality  a  noble  prayer  to  Jupiter  to  protect  his  people.  This 
touch  shows  one  of  the  orator's  realizations  of  the  fitness  of 
things,  for  the  meeting  is  held  in  the  temple  and  so  Cicero 
turns  to  the  simulacrum,  away  from  the  culprit.  All  are 
swayed  by  this  splendid  appeal,  the  prayer  to  the  tutelar  deity. 
There's  dignity,  there's  majesty  in  his  words! 

^Dio  gives  none  of  this.  Cicero's  speech  written  and  published  later.  Cat.  T, 
furious  and  threatening  in  tone,  is  a  document  of  events,     v.  also  Pro  Sull.  c.   18,   19. 

'Cat.   I.    K 

•Cat.  1,  3.  4,  Sail.  Cat.  XXTIT.  Florus  says  that  Catiline  left  threatening 
general  ruin  to  all. 

*Cat.  I,  5. 

'In    Piso.   c.    2. 

•Catiline  had  offered  himself  to  Cicero  a^  a  house  prisoner,  but  Cicero  refused 
to  harbor  him;  he  then  went  to  the  house  of  the  Praetor,  O.  Metellus.  in  order  not 
to  be  suspected:   from   there   to  M,   Metellus.     Cat.    I,   c.   8. 

^Ca*.   I.  11,   V2. 


XIV 

When  Catiline  attempted  to  answer  the  charges  made 
against  him  by  Cicero  the  senate  would  not  give  him  the  floor 
and  instead  called  him  a  traitor  and  other  names  indicative  of 
the  crimes  in  which  he  had  participated.  Catiline  then  threat- 
ened to  head  the  leaderless  mob."^ 


29 


Hi 


He  rushed  from  the  temple  and  during  the  night  following 
Cicero's  delivery  of  his  eloquent  and  indignant  address  to 
Catiline,  the  latter  left  Rome,  ostensibly  into  exile  at  Mar- 
seilles, in  reality  to  join  Manlius  in  his  camp  at  Faesulae, 
intending  to  advance  under  arms  against  the  city:  Never  was 
Catiline  to  see  his  native  city  again. 

On  the  following  day,  November  9th,  Cicero  assembled  the 
people  in  the  forum  to  relate  all  that  had  taken  place  in  the 
senate.  He  pointed  out  to  them  the  advantage  it,  was  to  the 
republic  that  Catiline  had  gone;  that  they  need  feel  no  fear 
from  Catiline's  forces;  he  would  watch.  He  urged  those  con- 
federates in  crime  still  in  the  city  to  become  normal  citizens 
and  assured  them  of  the  vengeance  of  the  law  if  they  per- 
sisted in  their  hostile  intention. 

Catiline  had  departed  from  Rome  and  Cicero  was  very 
happy,  though  he  felt  certain  that  now  an  open  conflict  be- 
tween citizens  and  conspirators  was  probable.' 

Cicero  states  his  reasons*  for  allowing  Catiline  to  depart 
from  the  city.  He  did  not  immediately  arrest  and  execute 
him  because  there  are  citizens  who  really  doubt  the  existence 
of  a  conspiracy,  and  these  must  be  convinced  by  proof,  and 
Cicero,  we  learn,  did  his  best  to  obtain  all  necessary  evidence ;' 
and  moreover,  there  are  many  men  who  sympathize  in  Cati- 
line's movement. 

Cicero's  greatest  regret  is  that  Catiline  did  not  take  all  his 
confederates  with  him  because  the  actual  danger  arises  from 
those  still  in  the  city.'  There  are  however  some  advantages 
accruing  from  Catiline's  withdrawal  because  Catiline  is  a 
leader  in  all  crimes  and  furnishes  a  rendezvous  for  all  disso- 
lute and  abandoned  men  who  have  become  his  supporters 
and  so  not  tolerable  to  those  interested  in  the  preservation 
and  welfare  of  the  commonwealth.  Catiline  is  intimate  with 
all  classes  of  people.'  Again  Cicero  begs  the  citizens  to  be 
alive  to  the  exigencies  of  the  hour. 

In  the  speech  in  the  senate  on  November  8th,  65  B.  C,  the 
day  previous  to  the  address  to  the  Roman  people  (Nov.  9th, 
B.  C).  strong  suggestions  were  made  to  Catiline  that  he  leave 
the  city  immediately.  Since  Cicero  voiced  the  sentiment  of 
the  senate  in  this  request,  the  statement  has  been  made  that 
it  was  Cicero  who  drove  Catiline  into  exile.  Cicero  states^ 
that  Catiline  was  not  banished  by  the^consul  but  voluntarily 
left  after  that  meeting  of  Nov.  8th.  XTicero  feels  the  criti- 
cisms from  all  sides  and  realizes  the  difficulties  of  his  position 
but  is  content  provided  the  state  remains  intact.    His  allusion 

'Pro   Mur.    c.    25. 

'Sail.   Cat.    XXVT,   Pro   Sull.   c.    19.   Cat.  TT,   c.   6.   7,  9. 

^Cat.  IT,   1. 

♦Cat  II,  2,  etc. 

»Sall.  Cat.  XXITT.  - 


30 


is  to  the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  Catiline's  men  to  assassinate 
him  at  his  own  home  a  few  days  previous." 

Among  the  men  who  are  Catiline's  adherents  are  the 
wealthy  farmers  whose  estates  have  been  mortgaged ;  the 
debtors  to  whom  cancellation  of  their  debts  was  promised  by 
Catiline  (novas  tabulas)  ;^*'  the  former  veterans  of  Sulla's  army 
who  had  squandered  their  apportionment  received  upon  their 
return  with  him ;"  the  men  who  have  been  declared  bankrupt 
and  whose  financial  status  is  hopeless ;  the  criminals  guilty 
of  the  various  capital  crimes ;  and  lastly  that  class  composed 
of  Catiline's  own  particular  and  boon  companions  in  vice  and 
debauchery.  Cicero  had  hopes  of  reforming  all  classes  but 
the  last ;  these  he  considered  beyond  redemption.^'' 

The  outcome  of  the  struggle  with  the  conspirators,  Cicero 
feels,  is  not  doubtful,  but  constant  vigilance  is  necessary  be- 
cause of  the  friends  of  the  conspiracy  in  the  city  who  must 
expect  no  quarter  nor  favor."  Cicero  assures  the  people  that 
if  the  gods  are  propitious  the  existing  situation  will  soon  be 
quietly  settled,  for  he  hopes  to  crush  the  efforts  toward  revo- 
lution without  recourse  to  arms." 

In  Livy  CH,  year  688  B.  C.  (64  B.  C.)  we  read  that  Catiline 
having  been  twice  defeated  in  his  efforts  to  obtain  the  consul- 
ship, formed  a  conspiracy  with  Lentulus,  Cethegus,  and 
others.  Their  aim  was  to  destroy  the  consul,  and  the  senate, 
to  set  the  city  afire,  and  to  seize  the  commonwealth.  In  B.  C. 
63,  this  conspiracy  was  discovered  and  frustrated  by  the 
efforts  of  the  consul. 

The  brief  statement  in  the  preserved  contents  to  Livy  Bk. 
CH  informs  us  that  Catiline  in  A.  U.  C.  689  (63  B.  C.)  was 
driven  out  of  Rome  and  raised  an  army  in  Etruria ;  the  other 
conspirators  were  punished  with  death. 

Paterculus  too  is  brief,  merely  recording  that  Catiline  was 
compelled  through  fear  of  extraordinary  powers  (S.  C.  U.)," 
conferred  on  the  consuls,  to  flee  from  the  city. 

He  was  confronted  with  his  evil  purposes  by  Cicero,  where- 
upon he  fled  from  the  city,  says  Plutarch  (Cat.). 

He  was  actuated"  by  an  idea  to  change  the  existing  condi- 
tions and  also  to  arouse  the  entire  empire  and  throw  every- 
thing into  turmoil.  He  was  forced  to  flee  before  the  proofs 
against  him  w^ere  complete;  before  all  his  ultimate  purposes 
were  uncovered. 

«Cat.  IT,  c.  3,  12. 

TCat.   II,   c.   4,   5,   Pro   Cael.    c.    5.    6. 

«Cat.  II,  c.  6,  7,  9,  Pro  Sull.  c.  5.  In  Pis.  c.   5,  Cat.  Ill,   2,   Sail.   Cat.  XXXII, 
XXXIV,  XXXVI. 

»Cat.  I,  4,  Sail.  Cat.  XXVII,  XXVIII,  Pro  Sull.  c.   18. 

»oSall.  Cat.  XXI,  Cat.  I,  c.  8.  9.   10. 

"Sail.  Cat.   XXI,  XXVIII.    , 

"Gat.   II,   c.    10,   Sec.   22,.  23. 

"Cat.   1 1,  c.  3,  12. 

"Cat.  II,  c.    13.  V.  later  results  c.  XVII  this  thesis. 

i 

31 


Catiline  plotted  a  wicked  and  general  upheavar'  of  the 
Roman  state  by  sedition  and  open  warfare. 

Lentulus"  and  Cethegus  remained  wath  several  others  to 
continue  the  work.  They  found  fault  with  Catiline  as  one 
who  lacked  courage  and  was  cowardly  and  weak  in  his 
schemes.  They  determined  to  set  the  city  on  tire  and  to  over- 
throw the  government,  to  rouse  the  nations  to  revolt,  and 
to  urge  foreign  wars.  This  plan  too  was  discovered  by 
Cicero,  as  has  been  told  in  the  life  of  Cicero  by  the  same 
author  (Plutarch). 

Of  greater  length  is  the  account  of  of  Appian.''  Catiline 
departed  to  join  Manlius,  with  the  intention  of  enlisting  addi- 
tional forces  and  of  invading  the  city  while  it  was  afire.  As 
though  he  were  already  a  consul,  he  journeyed  to  Manlius 
with  rods  and  axes**  borne  before  him. 

At  the  time'*  the  conspiracy  was  at  its  height,"  Catiline  was 
appointed  in  the  camp  to  manage  the  destruction  of  the 
republic. 

He  had  been  'allowed  to  depart''  out  of  the  city — he  whom 
Cicero  says  should  never  have  left  it  alive ;"  to  him  Autronius 
had    sent    arms,    trumpets,    bugles,    scythes,"    standards    and 

legions. 

Catiline's  chief  support"*  and  leader  of  veterans  at  Faesulae, 
was  Manlius,"  a  man  most  experienced  in  military  affairs, 
since  he  had  served  with  distinction  as  a  centurion  under 
Sulla,  and  a  spendthrift  of  repute.  What  he  had  reaped  under 
Sulla's  generous  provision  for  plunder — immense  sum  though 
it  had  been — was  already  spent  in  corrupt  practices,  and  he 
was  keen  for  further  adventure. 

As  soon  as  information'"  was  received  of  Catiline's  arrival 
at  Faesulae,  the  further  plan  for  those  in  the  city  was  for 
Lentulus  and  Cethegus,  his  accomplices,  to  call  early  in  the 
morning  at  the  home  of  Cicero,  and  while  in  conversation 
with  him,  slay  him  with  the  daggers  which  they  would  carry 
concealed. 

"Senatus  consultum  ultimum  invested  the  consuls  with  power  to  use  martial 
law;  it  was  without  doubt  assigned  the  consuls  on  Oct.  21,  63  R.  C. :  one  of  the 
absolutely  certain  dates;   a  bed  rock  of  chronology. 

"Plut.   Cacs.— Plut.   Cat. 

"Plut.  Cat.  III. 

wpiut.   Caes.  and  Cat.,   Sail.   Cat.   XXXTT. 

»»App.    Bell.   Civ. 

«'Sall.    Cat.    XXXVI.      Not    quite   correct    in    Appian. 

"Pro   Sull.  c.   19. 

"Pro  Sull.   c.   11. 

a»Pro   Sull.  c.    5,  Cat.   II. 

"Pro   Mur.   c.   25. 

^•There  are  commentators  who  propose  fasces  instead  of  falces  here,  which  i& 
probablvr  the  sense  of  the  thought. 

»Dio  i7,  29. 

"The  Greek  reads  Mallios,  in  Appian,  Plutarch,  Dio,  v.  Cat,   I  c,  4,  Pro  Sull.  c.  18. 

».\pp.    Bell.    Civ.    Sail,   Cat.    XXVIT,    XXVIII,    XXXII. 


Lucius  Bestia,"'  the  tribune,  was  at  once  to  assemble  the 
peoi)le  and  accuse  Cicero  of  timidity  and  inciting  the  people 
to  warfare,  and  of  causing  unnecessary  disturbance  in  the 
city. 

The  night  following  Bestia's  address  to  the  people  the  city 
was  to  be  set  on  lire  by  others  in  twelve  places,  according  to 
Appian  ;  there  was  to  be  general  plundering  and  assassina- 
tion of  the  leading  citizens. 

Cassius***  was  appointed  to  superintend  the  conflagration  ; 
Cethegus,  the  massacre ;  and  Autronius  had  allotted  to  him  the 
task  of  occupying  Italy. 

Thus  schemed^*  Lentulus,  Cethegus,  Statilius,  and  Cassius, 
the  leaders  in  the  plot,  and  they  awajted  the  appointed  time. 
Lentulus,'''  after  Catiline  went  to  Etruria,  promised  himself  the 
royal  supremacy,  prophesied  for  his  family  in  the  Sibylline 
books ;  he  distributed  throughout  the  city  in  readiness  for  the 
(lay  appointed  by  Catiline,  men,  combustibles,  and  weapons. 

During  the  course  of  these  preparations,  information 
reached  Cicero ;  first,  of  events  occurring  in  the  city  by  means 
of  some  letters,^  sent  anonymously,  which  were  given  to  Cras- 
sus  and  some  other  influential  men.  A  decree  was  passed 
that  a  state  of  disorder  existed  and  that  search  should  be 
made  for  the  agitators.  Next  came  the  news  from  Etruria 
whereupon  the  senate  voted  also  to  the  consuls  the  guardian- 
ship of  the  city  and  its  interests. 

After  his  second  defeat  at  the  polls  Catiline  prepared  then 
for  his  attack,  engaging  lost  men  in  his  cause,  and  no  longer 
directing  his  aims  secretly,  nor  against  Cicero  and  his  con- 
stituents only  but  against  the  whole  state.  Cicero  too  would 
make  us  think  that  it  was  not  a  personal*  matter  between  him- 
self and  Catiline,  but  the  enmity  was  against  him  (Cicero)  as 
chief  representative,  and  an  honorable  one,  watchful  of  the 
state's  interests  just  as  it  was  against  any  rt)^  officially  protect- 
ing the  constitutional  rights  of  the  republic.  Ca-to,  too,  scrupu- 
lous and  just  upholder  of  the  laws  of  the  city,  was  as  much  sub- 
ject to  attack  as  the  consul.  "Neque  isti  me  meo  nomine  inter- 
ficere  sed  vigilantem  consulem  .  .  .  volunt ;  nee  minus  vel- 
lent,  Cato,  te  .  .  .  tollere."  This  at  the  time  of  the 
conflict.  Later  (19  years)  he  renders  the  same  version  of 
the  struggle,  i.  e.  that  it  was  all  a  question  of  the  cancella- 
tion of  debts.  In  this  retrospect  he  does  not  even  mention 
Catiline.  "Numquam  vehementius  actum  est  quam  me  consule 
sule  (63  B.  C),  ne  solveretur;  armis  et  castris  temptata  res 
est  ab  omiii  genere  hominum  et  ordine,  quibus  ita  restiti,  ut 

»App.    Bell.    Civ. 

»»Pro   Sull.   c.    19,   V.   also  c.   5. 

"App.    Bell.  Civ. 

"Florus    IV,    1. 

"Dio  37,  29.  ■  • 


32 


3Z 


hoc  totuin  malum  de  republica  tolleretur.'"'  This  passage, 
which  agrees  with  his  sentiments  at  the  time  of  the  ev'ents,  is 
but  another  argument  that  the  upheaval  in  63  U.  C.  was  but 
the  result  of  the  general  tendency  toward  decadence,  and 
not  a  fabrication  of  an  imaginative  consul  endeavoring  to  stir 
up  the  populace,  as  some  critics  would  have  us  believe. 

To  resume  the  narrative : 

Of  this  same  period  Plutarch  writes  that  Catiline,  with  his 
conspirators,  was  at  first  subdued  and  discouraged  but  soon 
began  to  be  courageous  again.  They  gathered  together, 
exhorting  each  other  to  bq[dly  undertake  their  plan^^efore 
Pompey's'"'  return,  who,  with  his  forces,  was  reported  to  be 
en  route  to  Rome. 

One  of  the  important  paragraphs  in  Sallust  voices  the  daily 
thought  of  these  financially  embarrassed  citizens,  whose  con- 
stant cry  was,  "What  is  left  for  us  but  a  wretched  existence?" 
Therefore,  to  them  the  promise  of  the  repudiation  of  debts — 
Tabulae  Novae — came  as  a  most  welcome  salvation. 

Sulla's  old  soldiers  were  Catiline's  chief  stimulus  to  action, 
however.  Though  disbanded  all  through  Italy,  their  greatest 
number  and  most  aggressive  members  were  scattered  among 
the  cities  of  Etruria,  which  had  been  excited  to  revolt,  as  well 
as  a  great  part  of  Gaul  within  the  Alps.  These  were  dream- 
ing of  the  riches  and  plunder  to  be  gotten  from  the  hoarded 
wealth  of  Italy.  They  affiliated  with  Catiline  and  came  to 
Rome  to  aid  him  with  votes  at  the  election  of  63  B.  C,  for  he 
had  again  presented  himself  for  the  consulship,  having  deter- 
mined to  kill  Cicero  in  the  tumult  at  the  elections.  Dio," 
more  particular  in  this  instance  than  Plutarch,  says  Catiline 
had  a  band  ready  to  kill  Cicero.  Catiline  felt  he  would  then 
be  elected  if  Cicero  were  killed. 

It  was  during  the  conduct"  of  this  election  of  6^,  R.  C.  for 
62  B.  C.  that  a  charge  was  to  be  made  upon  Cicero,  w^ho  as 
chief  official  wx^uld  preside  over  the  election.  The  plot""  did 
not  turn  out  successfully.  Cicero  had  gained  some  inkling  of 
the  threats  against  his  life  and  came  surrounded  and  escorted 
by  men  from  Reate;  he  wore  as  an  additional  protection  a 
steel  corselet  which  the  style  of  wearing  his  gown  permitted 
to  be  seen.  John**  is  angered  at  Cicero  for  that  trick,  but 
Cicero  was  enraged  against  Catiline's  party  and  we  may  sup- 
pose considered  his  life  in  danger,  although  he  realized  the 
corselet  would  not  entirely  cover  him,  for  he  thought  Catiline 
would  aim  not  for  his  chest"  but  rather  for  his  head.  Cicero's 
intention  was  that  all  honorable  men  might  see  the  armor 
and  so,  as  they  actually  did,  rush  to  his  aid.  **His  tum  rebus 
commotus,  et  quod  homines  iam  tum  conjuratos  cum  gladiis 


in  campum  deduci  a  Catilina  sciebam,  descendi  in  campum 
cum  firmissimo  praesidio  .  .  .  lata  lorica  .  .  .  Cati- 
linam  non  lalus  .  .  .  sed  caput  .  .  .  petere 
omnes  boni  animadverterent  ...  in  metu  et  periculo 
consulem  viderent  ...  ad  opem  concurrerent.''  And  yet 
there  are  some*'  who  agree  he  did  it  to  cause  calumny  against 
Catiline  and  his  partisans. 

The  sight*"*  of  this  breastplate,  and  a  rumor  of  an  attempt 
against  Cicero's  life  being  circulated,  caused  the  populace  to 
become  furiously  angry  and  Catiline's  associates  through  fear 
became  quiescent. 


The   date    of   this    particular   election    was   long   a    subject   of 
c.    26,    Pro    Sull.    Sec.   51;    see   also   c.   XII    of 


"Dio  ^7,   29. 

3»Sall.   Cat.   XX\'I 
controversy. 

s'^Sall.   Cat.    XXVI,   Cic.   Pro   Mur 
this  thesis. 

^"Constantin  John  accuses  Cicero  of  acting  on  the  emotions  of  the  populace  to  magnify 
peril. 

«Pro  Mur.  c.  26. 

«])io   37.  '29. 

*^Plut.   Cic.   adds  that  future   trouble  seemed   foreshadowed  by  the   divine  powers 
in    earthquakes,    thunderbolts,    and    unwonted   appearances,      v.    Livy    22    for    Prodigia. 


«*Pro  Mur.   c.   38. 

"De  Offic.  2,  84  in  Nov.  44  B.  C. 
8«Sall.  Cat.  XXVIT,  Plut.  Cic.  c.  11. 


XV 

The  chronology  of  the  Catilinarian  history  still  bears  much 
investigation,  demanding  a  keen  handling  of  tradition.  There 
is  a  question  as  to  the  time  of  the  consular  election  of  63  B.  C. 
In  the  speech  in  defence  of  Murena  w^e  get  more  about  the 
election  than  perhaps  in  any  other  text. 

The  date  of  the  annual  election  was  not  a  settled  matter ; 
the  consuls  had  some  freedom  in  the  choice  of  day ;  they  were 
not  dependent  upon  a  stated  day;  their  judgment  without  the 
consent  of  the  senate  could  decide  the  day.^  The  usual  season 
was  late  July  or  early  August,  for  no  courts  were  held  during 
these  months. 

Constantin  John  with  his  follower  Heitland  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  election  of  63  B.  C,  took  place  in  July  or  August,  the 
usual  season,  and  not  later  in  the  year,  but  do  not  events 
prove  that  theory  unstable?  Mommsen\ holds  that  the  elec- 
tion was  held  November  4th. 

In  endeavoring  to  approximate  the  date  of  the  consular 
election  of  63  B.  C.  for  62  B.  C,  use  will  be  made  almost 
exclusively  of  Cicero's  speech  in  defence  of  Murena.  For 
this  reason  the  arguments  will  consist  mainly  of  transcrip- 
tions from  that  speech  of  those  passages  which  to  my  mind 
seem  to  contain  hints  on  which  I  base  my  theory  that  the  elec- 

*Pro   Mur.      In   Vcrr. 
^Monograph  1901. 


(Inrfl 


34 


35 


m 


tion  was  held  later  in  the  year.  1  may  have  read  and  under- 
stood incorrectly ;  my  angle  of  vision  may  not  have  afforded 
the  proper  perspective,  but  the  following  are  my  conceptions 
of  the  subject,  gained  from  my  viewpoint. 

In  the  course  of  his  defence,"  Cicero  remmds  the  jury  of 
*  their  own  api)rehensi()ns,  and  those  of  all  good  men,  lest  Cati- 
hnc  become  consul  at  that  time,  when  there  became  public 
some  of  the  utterances  which  Catiline  was  reported  to  have 
made  at  an  assembly  at  his  own  house,  which  caused  his 
ambitions  to  become  definitelv  known.  Therefore  when  the 
rumors  of  that  seditious  speech  were  rife,  the  consul  requested 
the  men  of  the  jury  to  recollect  that  a  resolution*  of  the  senate 
was  passed,  on  his  motion/  that  the  Comitia  should  not  be 
held  the  following  dav.  in  order  that  the  senate  might  discuss 
those  verv  matters  in  the  senate,  and  deliberate  upon  these, 
the  most  ^important  recent  developments,  in  Catiline's  enter- 
prise. Accordinglv,  the  next  day  was  assembled  a  full  meet- 
ing of  the  senate, 'at  which  Catiline  himself  appeared,  much 
to^the  surprise  and  consternation  of  ^Cicero,  and  then  Cicero 
delivered  his  famous  ist  Catilinarian." 

Evidentlv  there  had  vet  been  no  election  up  to  the  time  Cati- 
line addressed  his  confreres.     Also  history  generally  agrees 
that  the  senatorial  meeting  was  held  and  Cicero's  first  invec- 
tive was  delivered,  on  Nov.  8,  63  B.  C,  and  since  Cicero  had 
moved  that  the  Comitia  should  not  be  held  as  had  been  stated, 
we  must  perforce  believe  the  election  came  later,  and  could 
not  have  been  even  as  earlv  as  Nov.  8,  leaving  out  of  the  argu- 
ment entirelv  the  question  of  the  usual  July  or  August  season. 
At  the  close  of  Cicero's  harangue,  which  consisted  of  de- 
mands for  explanation  of  reports  of  misdeeds,  of  a  i)resenta- 
tion  of  personal  knowledge  of  misdemeanors  up  to  date,  and 
of  a  scathing  denunciation  of  a  disloyal  citizen  of  Rome,  Cati- 
line, not   accustomed    to   disguising    his   intentions,   did   not 
attempt  to  vindicate'  himself  and  disavow  the  accusations  but 
rather  boldlv  embraced  and  accepted  them  by  responding  to 
the  consul  in  a  most  fierv  declaration  of  his  intentions.     After 
this,  he  rushed  triumphantly  forth  from  the  senate  house.  ^ 
When  the  citizens  finallv  realized  the  intensity  of  Catiline  s 
hopes  and  desires  thev  we're  eager  to  repel"  that  pest  from  the 
state  and  immediately  joined  the  party  of  Murena,  since  Sul- 
picius  had,  apparently,  abandoned  a  canvass  for  a  consulship, 
for  a  prosecutor's  pursuit  of  proof  against  a  bribe  giver.    I^thc 
number  of  voters  for  Murena  w^as  increased  because  of  Cati- 
line's avowal  of  purpose  on  Nov.  8th,  the  idea  is  conveyed  that 

"Pro  Mur.  c.  24.  25,  Sail.  Cat.  XX,  Cat.  1. 

*Pro   Mur.   c.    25. 

•'•Die  37-29   says  senate  did  not  vote— is  not  clear. 

"Pro  Mur.  c.  25.  Cat.  T.  v.   Fischer,  Zeittafeln. 

^Pro  Mur.  c.  25. 


the  election  had  not  yet  been  held  on  that  day.  The  quotation 
{(allowing  will  again  be  used  in  proof  of  another  point ;  it  may 
also  be  inserted  here.  "Itaque  cum  te,  Servi,  remissiorem  in 
petendo  putarent,  Catilinam  et  spe  et  cupiditate  inflammatum 
viderent,  omnes,  qui  ab  re  publica  pestem  illam  depellere  cupie- 
bant,  ad  Murenam  se  statim  contulerunt.'"*' 

The  sentence  following,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  fore- 
going one,  bears  additional  evidence  both  of  the  urgency  and 
stress  of  the  period  and  the  establishment  of  the  date.  'Tn 
the  consular  comitia  the  sudden  inclination  of  men's  feelings 
is  often  of  great  weight,"  especially  as  in  this  case.  "Magna 
est  autem  coniitiis  consularibus  repentina  voluntatum  in- 
clinatio""  .  .  .  Men's  feelings  and  attitudes  were  inclined 
by  the  realization  that  Catiline  was  inflamed  wnth  an  evil 
thought  to  subvert  the  government  as  is  witnessed  by  his 
speech  on  November  8th  in  the  senate ;  so  the  election  was 
not  yet  an  event  by  that  date.  An  anti-John  paragraph  is 
IVo  Mur.  Sec.  89.  Cicero's  own  addition  to  the  law"  against, 
bribery  (exile  for  10  years)  would  exile  Murena.  This  would 
fell  John's  idea — a  few  days  before,  not  months.  "Subitam 
s])em""  of  Catiline  was  of  great  hel])  to  Murena.  Cicero  had 
said  on  November  20th  that  Catiline  had  no  hope"  to  be 
elected  and  yet  refers  to  second  repulsa  so  that  the  election 
could  not  have  been  in  July  nor  August,  as  John  thinks. 

•  Cicero  does  not  regard  it  strange  nor  wonderful  that  this 
sudden  hope  which  Catiline  entertains  of  obtaining  the  consul- 
ship should  be  a  great  aid  to  Murena. 

Tilection  day  was  surely  after  Catiline's  explosive  threats 
and  his  rush'"  from  the  Senate  House  ;  certainly  scheduled  later 
than  the  date  on  which  the  senate  convened,  following  Cati- 
line's exhortation  of  his  confederates. 

Tn  establishing  an  approximate  date  for  the  election  we 
gain  ground  on  which  to  base  approximately  a  calculation  of 
the  date  for  the  trial  of  Murena,  a  consul  chosen  at  that  elec- 
tion and  charged  with  electoral  bribery.  The  one  hinges  to 
a  great  degree  on  the  other;  prosecutions  of  Ambitus  usually 
followed  shortly  after  elections,  and  Murena  was  tried  toward 
the  close  of  the  year. 

A  less  convincing  argument  because  of  the  elasticity  of 
meaning  assigned  the  adverb  "now"  may  be  found  in  the  sen- 

"Pro    Mur.   c.    25,    Cat.    1. 

"Pro  Mur.  c.  26. 

»"Pro   Mur.   c.   26. 

"Pro    Mur.    c.    26. 

"Lex  Tullia. 

"Pro  Mur.  Sec.  52-3,  Murena's  election  due  to  Catiline's  sudden  hope  of  gaining 
the  consulship,  just  as  in  Cicero's  case  (64  B.  C.)  it  had  been  due  to  the  people's 
tear  of  Catiline. 

**Pro   Mur.    Sec.   53. 

**Pro   Mur.    Sec.    52,   v.   also  ch.    on   Murena. 


36 


37 


tence  with  which  Cicero  addresses  the  judges,  in  bringing  out 
Murena's  superior  advantages  over  Sulpicius  in  his  candi- 
dature for  consulship ;  in  it  he  remarks  he  can  mention  pub- 
licly "now  that  the  election  is  over"*"  matters  pertaining  to  a 
candidate's  attention  to  his  canvass  which  he  had  often  re- 
marked privately  to  Sulpicius,  "before  the  affair  was  decided." 

"Pro   Mur.    Sec.   43. 

There  are  many  puzzling  factors  in  connection  with  the 
establishment  of  the  date  of  the  election.  If  the  election  was 
held  in  July  or  August,  as  is  contended  by  some,  why  was 
it  so  late  in  the  year  before  Catiline  was  prosecuted  by  A. 
Paullus"  under  the  Lex  Plautia  de  vi  for  intention  to  assault 
Cicero  at  that  particular  election?  Indictments  were  not 
usually  so  long  delayed  after  an  offense  had  been  committed. 
That  he  will  not  offer  any  defense  to  the  charge  Catiline  sig- 
nifies in  his  letter  sent  to  L.  Catulus  when  he  had  presumably 
gone  into  voluntary  exile  but  in  reality  had  gone  to  Manlius 
after  the  first  Catilinarian  had  been  delivered. 

Herewith  follows  the  gist  of  Catiline's  speech,"  which 
caused  good  men  to  fear  and  finally  awakened  such  appre- 
hension in  the  senate.  No  faithful  defender  of  miserable  citi- 
zens could  be  found  unless  he  were  himself  wretched.  Men 
embarrassed  and  in  desperate  need  should  not  trust  the  prom- 
ises of  men  fortunate  and  prosperous ;  therefore,  all  who 
desired  restitution  of  fortunes  spent  were  wise  to  consider 
Catiline's  ])osition  as  debtor  and  his  possibilities  in 
daring  enterprises,  for  only  a  fearless  man  and  one  wholly 
destitute  could  be  the  leader  and  advocate  of  men  in  despair. 

It  is  plainly  seen  that  he  regarded  the  consulate  only 
as  a  steo  toward  gaining  his  supreme  ambition,  i.  e.  to  be  a 
second  Sulla. 

His  convincing  manner  and  persuasive  speech  inflamed  his 
hearers  to  enter  into  any  project  of  their  chief.  Although 
he  had  often  discussed  his  aims  with  them  individually,  his 
generalship  demanded  a  union  of  purpose.  He  therefore  had 
retired  to  a  private  apartment  in  his  own  home  to  address 
them.  Do  we  wonder  the  citizens  were  willing  to  overlook  a 
minor  offense — if  Murena  had  committed  one — in  order  to 
guard  against  the  most  "important  and  glorious  enterprise"*" 
in  which  Catiline  now  professed  himself  about  to  engage? 
The  question  of  the  election  is  a  matter  of  controversy.  If 
the  election  was  held  in  the  earlier  season — July  or  August — 
why  did  Sulpicius  with  Cato  wait  until  so  late  in  the  year — 
probably  late  November,  judged  from  internal  evidence — to 
prosecute  Murena  for  Ambitus  when  the  time  was  drawing 
so  near  for  him  to  assume  the  dignity  of  the  supreme  honor? 


"v.    Sih'tr    Cic.    of    .\ri»,    p.    144   n.    4,    p.    145 
"Sail.    Cat.    XX. 
i^Sal.   Cat.   XIX,    XX. 


n.    2. 


38 


in  the  speech  for  the  defence  of  Murena,  Cicero  says  his  own 

Ti::j^^t'T  ^"'  'V'^"^^^^'"  '^  -tisfactory'^an  eLnrt 

U  was  nit  id     f    '''T'''^'''^  ^''^'  ^''^^  ^'^'^^  ^«^^^^»t  officers, 
t  was  not  lack  of  evidence  that  caused  the  postponement  of 
the  prosecution,  for  in  the  trial  one  of  the  faults  whkhxTcerc 
censures   is   the  constant   search   of   Sulpicious  Tr   evrdence 
t(^ard  prosecutions  in  place  of  attending  to  the  winning  of 

The  election  in  all  probability  was  held  between  the  date, 
ot  November  8th,  when  Catiline,  after  having  I^n ted ^^^^^^ 
public  with  his  real  designs  and  having  recofntzed  Xir  t^"^ 
measure  of  nnn  rushed  from  the  assembly,  and  December  4d 
7r  ^^!  ^"^^^^o§:^s  figured  so  prominently.  Fo^  by  ^the 
latter  date  Murena  had  already  been  on  trfal  as  we  shall 
see  in  a  section  following  later,  and  the  election  perforce 
prexeded   it,  since  he  was  charged  with  electionrerinf  on 

'h^St^^  the  ^h  Th'  ^'^^-^^'^  CatilinetCrtu"e""du^^^^^ 
che  night  of  the  8th  the  excitement  over  the  coming  election 

waned  and  that  it  was  so  quiet  an  affair  compared  wfth  events 

immediately  preceding  that  it  passed  off  witL>ta  anv  commo 

on   and  no   reason  to  have  particular  stress  laid  'uprThe 

«1  '^"  ^^^appening.     It  came  somewhere  between  N"vem 

her  8th  and  December  3rd,  minus  a  suitable  interval  o    time" 

or  a  prosecution.    We  draw  it  to  still  a  narrower  lin^t  of     me 

f  we  choose  the  November  20th  date,  from  which  plauslSe 

he'Xr  "  1^1''  'TT  "^  '^^^.^"^  "^^-^^^^  -^  DeceSer  3rd 
the   other.      1  hen    election    and    prosecution    must   have   fnl 

lowed  fast  upon  each  other's  heels. 

It  certainly  was  not  in  the  summer.     Could  it  even  hnv^ 
been,  as  Mommsen  believes,  November  4th,  quite  before  Ca  i 

df  'ahhrJi'Vr'^'""^^'^  l"^  "^^^^'  --^  declared ";  hfrn-' 
self,  although  this  is  nearer  the  probable  time?  ^ 

At  this  election  defeat  was  again  Catiline's  lot.    Silanus  and 
Murena  were  chosen  for  62  B.  C.  ^uanus  and 

=*Pro  Mm.  «cc.  80.     Also  c.  2,  37. 


XVI 

t   e  cofsn^Lcv  &      P'"""!?  *^i'  ^■^^"t''^  proportions  which 
large  extent  ''''"'"'^-     ^"  '^''  ^^^"'"^  ^^^es  to  a 

At  the  consular  elections  in  63  B.  C.  for  62  R  C  Decimns 
Jun.us  S,  anus  and  Lucius  Licinius  Murena,  whofigured  kt  e 
.n  soc.a  Me.  were  elected  consuls,  as  has  been  Xd  The 
defeated  candidates  were  Lucius  Sergius  Catilina  and  tmfortu! 
nately.  Servn.s  Sulp.cins  Rnfus.  a  man  qualified  idea  land 


30 


ij 


the  ablest'  jurist  at  the  Roman  bar.  Of  Catiline  we  have  heard 
and  shall  hear  further. 

Sulpicius  charged  Murena  with  bribery.  Marcus  Cato  with 
others  signed  the  indictment.  The  lawyers  for  the  defence 
were  Hortensius,  Crassus,  and  Cicero. 

The  trial  was  held  in  November,  probably  the  latter  part, 
when  Catiline  was  already  carrying  on  his  operations  against 
the  republic.  It  is  programmed  between  the  first  two  and 
the  last  two  of  the  Catilinarian  orations  of  Cicero.  The  Murena 
is  one  of  the  most  important  orations  historically;  showing 
Cicero's  splendid  ability,  it  has  a  value  for  matters  historical 
and  antiquarian ;  gives  an  insight  into  Stoic  philosophy ;  and 
in  lighter  vein,  reveals  the  depth  of  a  jurist's  erudition. 

This  speech  in  behalf  of  Murena  discloses  the  fact  that  the 
jury  in  this  trial  overlooked  the  detail  that  Murena  had  put 
monev  into  his  pocket  during  his  canvass,  and  presents  the 
Catilinarian  matter  in  a  very  strong  light.    "...     ne  consul 

Catilina  fieret.'" 

Denying  the  assertions  of  all  of  Cicero's  detractors,  should 
we  not  rather,  then,  take  that  view  of  the  situation  which 
the  jury  at  that  trial  took?  They  considered  it  most  impor- 
tant to  keep  two  consuls  and  the  govjernment  as  it  was.  If 
Murena  were  thrown  out,'  Silanus  would  have  been  com- 
l)elled  to  hold  an  election  about  January,  or  rule  alone. 

He  is  called  "consul  suiTectus"  who  has  to  be  chosen  to 
supplant'  another.  "Unus  erit  consul  .  .  .  non  in  admin- 
'  istrando  bello,  sed  in  sufificiendo  collega  occiipatus." 

There  would  then  have  ensued  new  possibilities  of  con- 
fusion and  would  have  but  postponed  the  evil  for  a  future 
day."  ".  .  .  de  manibus  nostris  in  eum  annum  qui  con- 
sequitur."  Therefore  the  jury  was  blind  to  Murena's  former 
act  of  Ambitus. 

Catiline's  plans,  too,  would  be  furthered  by  the  presence 
of  only  one  consul,  for  it  would  be  easier  to  overcome  a  state 
handicapped  in  such  respect;  it  would  mean  the  weakening 
of  the  stronger  element  in  tribunician  power  also,  and  there  is 
an  implacate  that  the  other  tribune'  for  the  coming  year  was 
not  without  fault,  and  Cato,  the  upright,  was  to  be  the  balance 

wheel. 

Catiline  was  fearless  ;'  and  that  Cicero  and  the  Roman  people 
ascribed  much  power  to  him  is  demonstrated  frequently. 
"L.est  he  should  become  consul"  pulsates  with  their  throbs  of 
anxiety  as  to  the  ill  use  he  would  make  of  an  official  authority 
entrusted  to  him. 

His  bold  entrance'  into  the  meeting  of  the  senate,  the  very 
body  whose  wholesale  assassination  is  included  in  his  pro- 
gram, is  another  evidence  of  his  bold  fearlessness.  His  evil 
projects   were  already   rumored  abroad,   yet   he   came.     His 

^Justinian   Digest    1.   2.   43,    P!ut.   Cat.   Min.  '21,   Drumann    \'. 


speech,-  too,  in  boldly  defining  his  position  as  head  of  a  strong 
but  leaderless  body  of  the  republic  shows  his  profound  dis- 
regard for  all  laws  of  state  or  man. 

The  argument  by  which  the  case  was  won  was  the  general 
condition  of  the  times.  Cicero,  as  one  of  the  defence,,  speaks 
little  about  the  charge  of  ambitus.  Cicero  does  not  say  Murena 
did  not  pay  for  voters  but  it  is  psychologically  plausible  that 
since  people  liked  games  and  Murena,  as  praetor,  had  held 
good  shows,  that  he  had  the  good  will  of  the  people  thereby, 
and  they  liked  the  person  furnishing  the  entertainment 
"...    praetura  grata  in  munere."" 

All  the  leading  men  in  Rome  knew  that  were  Murena  found 
guilty,  there  would  be  but  one  consul,  Silanus;  and  because 
great  issues  were  ahead,  since  Catiline  was  in  the  field,  it  was 
considered  all  important  by  the  jury  that  there  should  be  tw^o 
con.suls,  and  not  one,  on  January  ist,  62  B.  C.    "Magni  interest 
.     .     .     esse  Kalendis  Januariis  in  re  publica  duos  consules."" 
One  consul  would  be  required  in  the  city  conducting  home 
afi^airs,  and  the  other  one  would  probably  be  called  to  com- 
mand the  army  against  the  insurgent  forces,  for  Roman  con- 
suls are  nominally  commanders  of  the  army. 
.  This  whole  question  of  the  complete  apprehension  of  the 
Catilinarian  faction   was  projected"  into  the  consulship   suc- 
ceeding, for  no  one  had  intimation  that  such  decisive  evidence 
would  be  produced  ere  Cicero's  administration  closed,  for  the 
seizure  of  the  conspirators  and  the  incident  at  the  Mulvian" 
Bridge  had  not  yet  eventuated,  or  such  anxiety  had  not  existed 
in  the  consul's  mind,  but  he  is  urgent  that  a  state  as  well 
fortified    as    possible    be    handed    over    to    his    successors. 
".      .      .     rem  publicam  cupio  tradere  incolumem  ab  his  tanti-^ 
periculis  defendendam."" 

It  was  this  remissness"  of  Servius  Sulpicius  in  his  candidacy, 
who  threatened  prosecutions  instead  of  zealously  winning 
adherents,  and  the  frenzy  of  Catilfne  in  his  canvass  which 
caused  citizens  to  lean  toward  Murena,  the  only  other  candi- 
date of  the  four,  possible  of  election,  for  there  had  been  no 
question  in  regard  to  Silanus.  ".  .  .  te  .  .  .  remissi- 
orem  in  petendo  putarent,  Catilinam  et  spe  et  cupiditate 
mflammatum  .  .  .  omnes  ad  Murenam  se  statim  con- 
tulerunt."" 

'Pro   Mur.    c.   24. 

Tro  Mur.   c.   38,   39. 

*Pro  Mur.  c.  39. 

»Pro  Mur.   Sec.  85,   Cat.    I.   Sec.   31. 

•Pro   Mur.    Sees.   81-2. 

^Pro  Mur.    Sec.   48. 

"Cat.  I. 

'•Pro  Mur.   Sec.  51. 

"Pro  Mur.   c.   26. 

"Pro   Mur.   c.   2,    and   Sees.    79.   80. 


40 


41 


Therefore  can  Mommsen,  and  Drumann,  and  John,  and 
that  whole  school  of  later  enemies  of  Cicero,  those  who  belittle 
the  Catilinarian  dangers,  justly  affirm  that  Cicero  did  all  for 
his   own    glory   and   that   he   merely   exaggerated    the   whole 

thing? 

The  I'ro  Alurena  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant  speeches;  m 
it  Cicero  ridicules  dry,  civil  law.  It  is  important  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Ambitus;  contains  data  of  the  Catilinarian  proposals, 
including  the  expression  of  Catiline's  sentiments  before  his 
second  repulsa.  It  comes  between  the  second  (Nov.  Qth)  and 
third  Catiline  orations,  after  Catiline  had  left  and  before  the 
testimony  of  the  AUobroges  (Dec.  3rd).  There  are  intima- 
tions in  Pro  Alurena  that  plots  were  still  unhatched. 

The  question  of  the  time  of  Murena's  trial  is  a  debateable 
one.  Lange"  thinks  it  was  held  only  a  few  days  after  the 
nones  of  December.  Sihler  is  against  that  theory.  The  argu- 
mentum  to  the  oration  cites  November. 

We  may  infer  that  the  case  was  probably  called  in  late 
November,  63  B.  C,  and  that  not  enough  decisive  evidence 
of  Catiline's  plans  were  yet  produced  at  the  time  of  the  trial, 
from  Cicero's  statement,  which  fits  well  with  such  conclusion. 
"Sed  moneo  indices :  in  exitu  iam  est  mens  consulatus."" 

Couple  with  those  words  the  knowledge  that  on  December 
3rd  satisfactory  proof  and  convincing  witnesses  were  avail- 
able;  therefore  we  feel  sure  the  trial  speech  was  held  before 
December  3rd.  We  are  positive  it  was  before  December  loth. 
for  tribunes  took  office  December  loth,  three  weeks  before  con- 
suls— and  after  his  election  each  official  was  termed  "desig- 
natus"  until  he  assumed  his  office ;  in  addressing  Cato,  Cicero 
speaks  of  Metellus,  the  colleague-elect,  who  is  to  share  the 
tribunician  power  with  Cato  for  the  year  62  B.  C.  as  ''desig- 
nati  tribuni,  colleagae  tui."*" 

Pointing  conclusively  to  the  fact  that  the  case  of  Murena  was 
spoken  before  the  Mulvian  Bridge  event  are  Cicero's  historical 
words,  wonderfully  descriptive  of  the  elements  of  sedition 
within  the  city.  'Tntus,  intus,  inquam,  est  equus  Trojanus!"** 
A  truly  great  passage!  The  conspirators  ar/e  not  yet  appre- 
hended and  the  documents  are  not  yet  in  his  hands.  He  is 
still  nervous  about  the  outcome;  Lentulus,  Gabinius,  and 
others  are  known  by  Cicero,  through  Fulvia,  to  belong  to  that 
circle,  but  no  convicting  evidence  has  he  to  bring  before  a 

"Pro  Mur.   Sees.  80,  85. 

"Cat.  III.  Basis  for  a  date,  contrary  to  Lange's  supposition:  after  the  nones 
of  Dec.  all  the  proof  was  in. 

"Pro    Mur.    c.    37. 

"Pro  Mur.   c.   24.   25,   26. 

"Election  day  matter  after  Catiline's  rush  from  senate  house.  Pro  Mur.  c.  25 
26,  V.  also  XV  of  this  thesis. 

"f..  Lange.     E.   C.   Sihler.  Cic.   of  .\rp.   p.   154. 

"Pro  Mur.   c.   21. 


court.     But  after  the  examination  of  the  AUobroges,  the  fel- 
lows in  the  Trojan  horse  were  brought  out.'' 

How  can  any  one  argue  that  the  speech  came  after  the 
nones  of  December  (5th)  after  the  garroting,  after  the  receipt 
of  the  documents,  which  at  the  time  of  the  trial  were  clearly 
not  yet  m  possession  of  the  vigilant  consul,  who  was  con- 
stantly on  guard  to  prevent  the  citizens  from  being  ensnared 
by  those  lurking  in  the  Trojan  horse.  "Audite  consulem  totos 
dies  atque  noctes  de  re  publica  cogitantem."  "...  equus 
Trojanus^  a  quo  numquam  me  consule  dormientes  oppri- 
niemini.'*"  How  true  to  his  promise  was  the  watchful  consul! 
Could  it  have  been  at  the  time  Lange  believes? 

Are  we  not  fairly  justified  in  the  position  we  maintain  that 
the  speech  was  not  held  after  the  nones  of  December,  when 
the  proofs  were  already  in  possession  of  the  state?  Lange  is 
probably  incorrect  on  this  j^oint. 

"Pro  Mur.  c.  .^8. 

=«Pro   Mur.   c.   27. 

"Cat.   Ill,   IV,   Sihler,  Cic.   of  Arp.    p.    155. 

"Pro  Mur.  c.  37. 


xvn 

At  thi-s  point  the  uninterrupted  chain  of  events  breaks. 

There  were  in  the  city'  at  this  time  ambassadors'"  of  the 
AUobroges  to  complain  against  their  Roman  governor;  for 
It  was  customary  for  all  subject  states  to  have  patrons  at 
Rome. 

Not  to  confine  the  plot  to  the  citizens,  the  deputies  of  the 
AUobroges'  were  also  invited  to  join  in  the  conspiracy  of 
which  Lentulus.'  who  had  the  highest'  rank  (praetor)  in  the 
conspiracy,  was  now  the  recognized  head  in  the  city;*  the 
object  was  to  cause  an  insurrection  against  the  Romans  in 
Gaul  and  so  spread  it  beyond  the  Alps.'  The  AUobroges  in 
doubt,  consulted  with  Fabius  Sanga,  their  patron. 

We  would  understand  from  the  Pro  Sulla"  that  Cassius  also 
treated  with  the  AUobroges,  for  we  read  if  Cassius  had  sup- 
posed that  there  was  any  danger  of  their  ever  giving  any 
mformation  at  all,  he  probably  would  not  have  made  any  con- 
fession of  himself  as  implicated  in  the  conspiracy.  It  was 
proven  that  much  of  it  was  deliberated  upon  in  his  house.* 

In  company"  with  the  AUobroges,  Lentulus  sent  to  Catiline 
a  man  of  Croton,  Volturcius  by  name,  who  was  entrusted  with 
letters,  unsigned. 

According  to  Appian,  Sanga  disclosed  the  communication 
of  the  AUobroges  to  Cicero,  who  took  them  and  Volturcius 
captive  while  they  were  en  route  and  brought  them  at  once 
before  the  senate.    Florus  briefly  states  that  the  envoys  were 


42 


43 


at  once  captured  by  order  of  Cicero.     More  likely. 

Sallust"  records  that  they  were  captured  without  resistance 
at  the  Mulvian  Bridge,  being  privy  to  their  own  arrest ;  Vol- 
turcius,  however,  was  overpowered  only  after  a  struggle. 
Florus  relates  that  the  letter  was  intercepted  through  the 
information  of  Volturcius.  He,"  for  his  evidence,  was  granted 
immunity.      Praetors''  had  charge  of  the  night  work  at  the 

Mulvian  IJridge. 

To  resume  Appian's  account— the  Allobroges  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Lentulus  acknowledged  their  negotiations  with  him 
and  testified  that  he  had  frequently  boasted  that  it  was  proph- 
esied in  the  Sibylline"  verses  that  three  Cornelii  were  to  be 
rulers  in  Rome ;  there  had  already  been  two,  Cinna  and  Sulla.- 

Cicero  refers  to  the  Allobroges  as  those  who  had  given  the 
truest  information"  in  the  most  important  matters. 

The  senate  gathered,"  read  the  documents  and  heard  the 
informers— Volturcius  and  the  Allobroges.  When  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Allobroges  had  been  taken  and  Lentulus  had 
been  examined  and  convicted  of  sending  letters  to  Catiline, 
advising  him   not   to  overlook  the  slaves,   Lentulus  resigned 

his  office.*' 

Not  found  in  .Sallust  is  this— that  Silanus  stated  that  some 
people  heard  said  that  Cethegus  had  asserted  that  three  of 
consular  rank,  including  Cicero,  and  four  praetors  were  about 

to  be  slain."* 

Also  Piso.  the  consul  of  67  B.  C,  and  Gains  Sulpicius,  a 
praetor,  being  sent  to  search  the  house  of  Cethegus,  found 
missiles,  arms,  and  darts,  newly  sharpened. 

A  word  must  here  be  inserted  concerning  the  careful 
method*'  adoi)ted  by  Cicero  in  relation  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Allobroges  and  Volturcius,  which  shows  the  thoroughness 
with  which  he  went  about  his  work.  After  he  had  brought 
the  informers  before  the  senate  (Dec.  3rd)  he  appointed  sen- 
ators, men  of  intelligence,  fine  memory,  rapid  in  thought  and 
writing,  to  take  down  every  statement  made  by  the  witnesses, 
every  question  asked,  every  answer  given.  The  scribes,  whom 
Cicero  names,  easily  followed  whatever  was  said  and  had  the 

"According  to   App.    Tfell.    Civ.    they   deprive   T.cutulus  of  office.      Cat.    Ill,    6   also 

ability  required  to  write  an  accurate  report,  in  order  that  in 
the  future,  the  recollection  of  the  senate  on  the  subject  when 
still  fresh,  might  be  borne  out  by  evidence  of  t)ublic  records, 
as  the  authority  and  particulars  of  the  case.  This  was  done  to 
deter  anv  foe  of  peace  and  tranquil  government  to  seek  pro- 


'.\pp.   Bell.  Civ.  TI,  1. 

-Plut.  says  2. 

'App.  Pell.  Civ.  IT,  1.  Florus  IV.  1. 

*Pro    Sull.    c.    5.   c.    19,    Cat.    IIT,    2. 

•Dio   37,    29-30.    Pint.    Cic.    19. 

"Pro  SuU.  c.  11. 

^Florus  TV,  1. 


44 


tection  for  himself  in  a  precedent,  perverted  through  incorrect 
report. 

In  addition,  he  did  not  keep^"  the  record  made  in  the  senate 
at  private  homes,  as  had  been  the  custom  among  the  ances- 
tors; he  had  It  copied  to  have  no  future  falsification  pf  facts 
and  distributed  to  all  the  Roman  people  in  Italy  and  in  the 
provinces;  he  wished  all  to  know  by  what  information  safetv 
had  been  bestowed  on  all.  These  papers  really  became  official 
(Acta  Senatus.)'' 

Another  reason  for  distributing  the  information  was  that 
none  could  accuse  the  senate  of  giving  credence  too  rashlv  • 
that  none  should  remember  or  forget  only  as  much  as  he 
pleased:  that  none  in  perusing  Cicero's  private  journals  or 
questioning  him  as  consul  of  that  year,  should  accuse  him  of 
noting  only  what  he  wished;  suppressing  other  information; 
^ilsifying,  or  tampering  with,  the  account. 

The  Sulla  oration  is  of  utmost  importance  historically  and 
must  be  read  as  a  necessary  accompaniment''  to  Catiline  III 
.There  are  facts  there  not  found  in  Catiline  III. 

This  document  also  gives  the  exact  names  of  those  impli- 
cated.    'Tndices  (editicii)  ab  accusatoribus  delecti." 

We  have  reports  also  in  Plutarch  and  Sallust— all  reports 
do  not  agree  about  these  men.  These  were  all  tried  and 
exiled,  or  their  property  confiscated. 

This  document  is  later  valuable  for  settled  restitution  of 
rights  and  in  the  trial  of  Sulla."  In  fact  the  whole  case  is 
based  on  this  record  with  which  Cicero  took  such  pains 

This  soeech  (pro  Sulla)  is  one  of  the  richest  in  the  whole 
Catihnarian  matter. 

It  will  be  noted  that  Fulvia  divulged  the  previous  secret 
undertakings  of  Catiline  but  that  this  later  development  of 
Lentulus'  hatching  was  made  known  through  the  agencv  of 
the  Allobroges.         '  ,     "         ' 

'  The  third  oration  against  Catiline  is  the  oration   of  docu- 
mentary evidence.     There  is  a  lapse  of  more  than  three  weeks 

~^'  "Pro  SuII.   c.    13. 

"Pro    Sull.    Sec.    39. 

»»App.   Bell.   Civ.   I. 

"Sail.  Cat.  c.  XLV. 

'2Plut.    Cic.    19. 

'•'Cat.    TIT,    Sail.   Cat.   XLV. 

"Flor.   IV,   1. 

"Pro    Sul).   c.    5. 

"Plut.  Cic.  19. 
of  citizenshii>-extraordinary.  ' 

"Plut.    Cic.    19. 

»»Pro.    Sull.   c.    14,    15. 

-"Pro  Sull.  c.   15. 

=»Tabulae    publicae,    the    official    records,    i.    e.    Sotatus   cotisiiltuw    iiltinnnn;    other 
caat  senatus  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  consuls  in  office      Hahn 
=2Pro  Sull.  c.   13,    14,   15,   Cat.   ITT. 
»Pro   Sull.   c.    14,    15. 


45 


m 


between  the  second  and  the  third  oration,  which  was  delivered 
on  the  evening  of  December  5th."^ 

Cicero,  meanwhile,  had  watched  constantly  and  carefully 
and  had  finally  obtained  proof,  complete  and  convicting, 
against  those  who  were  chiefly  involved  as  leaders  in  Rome. 
These  details  of  the  examination  of  the  malefactors  we  get 
from  Sallust  f  and  from  Cicero's  Pro  Murena,  we  also  gain 
knowledge  of  the  subject.  Cicero  himself  had  no  occasion  to 
make  a  formal  speech  on  the  day  of  the  examination.  On  the 
following  one,'"  he  acquainted  the  citizens  with  all  the  circum- 
stances, including  the  proofs  produced  and  how  gained. 

He  explained  fully  the  measures  of  the  senate  in  relation 
to  the  conspirators.  He  informed  the  people  of  the  progress 
of  investigation  and  the  ])roceedings  up  to  the  date  of  the 
meeting.  Cicero  assured  the  citizens  that  the  republic  was 
'  preserved  through  the  consul's  efforts ;  he  gave  the  details  of 
the  investigations,  and  the  detection  of  the  conspirators ;  and 
the  arrest  of  the  Allobrogian  envoys.  He  acquainted  the 
people  with  the  facts  concerning  the  stationing  of  the  prae- 
1  tors  as  guards  at  the  Mulvian  Bridge,  to  lie  in  wait  for  and 
capture  the  traitors  or  their  messengers.  The  people  were 
told  that  all  dispatches  seized  had  been  referred  intact  to 
the  senate  by  Cicero.  He  did  this — left  the  seals  unbroken — 
that  none  might  claim  any  agent  of  his  had  forged  such  letters 
and  documents  as  had  been  seized. 

Likewise  were  the  citizens  informed  that  Volturcius  was 
state's  evidence,  and  that  the  envoys  from  the  Allobroges  also 
testified,  thus  incriminating  the  conspirators,  and  finally  that 
Lentulus,  Cethegus,  Gabinius.  and  Statilius  had  all  been  cross- 
examined,  and  had  confessed.  As  material  evidences  of  these 
crimes,  Cicero  had  had  retained  the  seals,  tablets,  and  letters. 
Moreover,  the  confession  of  each  criminal  as  well  as  the  facial 
proof  of  crime  while  under  examination  had  convicted  the 
several  prisoners.  The  prisoners  were  now  held  in  custody. 
Since  Catiline  is  beyond  the  city  and  his  chief  supporters  have 
been  captured,  Cicero  feels  sure  that  Catiline  will  soon  also 
desnair  and  lose  hope. 

Nor  must  the  state  forget  to  attribute  to  the  good  will  of 
the  gods  the  good  fortune  that  the  plot  was  discovered  ere 
the  state  was  overwhelmed.  The  gods  have  shown  their 
favor,  since  this  civil  disorder  has  been  settled  without  blood- 
shed, while  those  of  other  days  had  not  been  so  peaceably 
settled.  Cicero  took  great  credit  to  himself  for  this  settle- 
ment. Cicero  asked  no  return  for  his  services  to  the  state 
except  the  gratitude  of  his  fellow  citizens  whom  he  trusted 

=*(!at.  Ill,  Plut.  Cic.  XIX. 
"Sail.   Cat.   46,   etc.,   Pro   Mur. 
MCat.  Ill,  Plut.  Cic.  XIX. 

46 


to  protect  him  from  harm,  and  to  wliom  he  pledged  to  remain 
worthy  of  their  confidence. 

Cicero,  who  had  previously  been  distinguished  for  his  elo- 
quence,    became  famous  also  as  a  man   of  action,  who  had 
unquestionably   saved   his   countrv   from   the   clutches,  of  its 
enemies.     Ouintus  Catulus,'^  the  chief  of  the  senatorial  body 
the  great  leader  of  the  public  council,  paid  tribute  to  Cicero's 
acliievements  in  the  fullest  possible  house,  by  calling  him  the 
father  of  his  country."     Some  think  that  this  appellation," 
which  was  later  bestowed  upon  emperors  worthy  of  it    had 
its  inception  at  the  time  of  Cato's  application  of  it  to  Cicero 
It  is  only  decreed  as  a  testimonial  of  valuable  services  ren- 
dered.    Ihat  illustrious  man,  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  mem- 
bers, said  that  a  civic"  crown  was  due  Cicero  from  the  republic 
With  general  acclamation  the  senate  showed  its  apprecia- 
tion of  Cicero's  long  watchfulness  bv  a  supplication"  unprece- 
dented, by  opening  the  temples  of  the  gods  in  his  honor;  not 
because    he    had    successfully    governed    the    republic— many 
had  been  paid   that  compliment— but  because  he  had  saved 
It;  that   was  an   honor  never  before  conferred,  and   Cicero 
though  clad  in  the  garb  of  peace,  was  its  proud  recipient.  His 
feat  in   crushing  Catiline  without  unsheathing  his   sword  is 
often  alluded  to  by  Cicero  ''.      .      .     pacis  auctori 
(the    author    of^^  peace).»=     also     \        .        .       cedant     arma 
^^^^^^       •       •       •*  '  and  many  such  boasts. 

On  the  day,  too,  when  Cicero  resigned  his  ofi^ce  to  his  suc- 
cessor, the  people  voiced  their  congratulations.''  Cicero  had 
been  prevented  by  the  tribune  Metellus  Nepos  from  making 
the  customary  speech  at  close  of  his  official  vear,  and  was 
allowed  mily  to  take  the  oath;  this  Cicero  did 'in  an  unusual 
tashion,  by  swearing  that  his  individual  exertions  had  pre- 
served the  city  and  state.  It  was  then  the  populace  unani- 
mously approved  of  his  words  and  rendered  him  great  glorv 
and  escorted  him  home  in  a  long  train. 

Such  is  the  state  of  affairs  at  Rome  when  the  prisoners  were 
l^rought  to  trial  to  receive  sentence  for  their  crimes.     Sallust 
and  Cicero,  in  the  facts  previous  to  the  trial  scene  itself,  agree 
well.     Sallust  introduces  his  subject  by  a  more  or  less  per- 
sonal    preface    in    historical     styles;    Cicero,   his     in     direct 
addresses    in    four   divisions,    in    oratorical    style.      His   tone 
throuJT-bout  oration   HI  is  a   happy  one   over  the  successful 
results'"  of  his  alert,  continual  vigilance.     He  had  a  personal 
pride  in  his  politics;  his  policy  was  one  of  prevention  of  ill 
and  it  had  called  forth  all  the'  vigor  of  the  man  to  maintain 
it  throughout  his  consulship. 

"Plut.  Cic.  - 

2»Tn   Piso.   c.    3. 

»Plut.   Cic. 

^A  civic  crown    was   awarded    for   saving  the   life   of  a   citizen. 

47 


%' 


Cicero"  then  went  to  the  home  of  a  friend  where  he  was  to 
spend  the  night,  for  the  Roman  women  were  holding  sway  ni 
his  home  in  the  ritual  and  mystery,  called  that  of  Bona  Uea. 

It  was  at  the  home'"  of  the  scholar  and  antiquarian,  Fublius 
Niffidius  Figulus,  that  Cicero  spent  this  night  following  the 
third  Catilinarian,— a  night  full  of  reflection  as  to  the  course 
to  pursue  in  punishing  these  traitors.  He  wished  to  apply 
caution,  and  to  guard  against  using  the  extreme  and  proper 
penalty  suitable  for  such  misdeeds.  There  were  many  tactors 
to  make  him  shrink  ifrom  doing  so.  He  himself  was  non- 
aristocratic,  while  the  culprit  Lentulus  was  of  the  very  aristo- 
cratic Cornelii  family ;  therefore  he  hesitated  at  the  application 
of  martial  law  in  his  case.  Yet  if  he  treated  the  consj^irators 
too  gently,  he  feared  danger  from  them. 

^nn   Piso    r.  3,  29,  Cat.  Ill  c.  6.  Cat.  IV  c.   10,  Sail.  Cat.  XLVIII. 

3-»Ad   Fam.    VII,    23,   to   Fadius   Callus— about    55    B.    C.  — some   place   the   letter 

later.     Pro.   Sull.  c.   11,  Cat.  Ill   c.    1.  ^  .    tt        ii 

:«In  Piso.  c.  29,  Cat.  Ill  c.  10.  v.  his  earlier  hope  and  endeavor  Cat.  11  c.  li. 

•«In    Piso.    c.    3. 

•»Ad  Fam.  5,2.  .      ..         ,  ^n     ai 

3«Aside  from  Plut.  we  are  able  to  use  De  IMv.   19  sqq..   Dc  Consulatu  suo  60  odd 

verses  on    his  own   consulship,   as  sources   for  details   of  Cicero's  c\v.c   triumphs, 
"■piut.   Cic.   c.    19. 

»«\  festival  celebrating  the  function  of  conception,  i)r».paKation.  and  passing  on 
of  life  The  \'e-tal  Virgins  with  wife  or  mother  of  some  high  official  were  hostesses 
to  these  thousands  of  wcmien  who  took  part  in  the  celebration.  No  male  person 
was  allowed  to  he  present  or  in  the  house  that  night;  therefore  Cicero  d.d  not  spend 
the  night  following  the  handling  of  the  documents  at  home  for  Terentia  was  hostess, 
Cicero  being  the  highest  official  executive.  At  this  festival  a  large  basm  of  w,ne 
was  u.sed,  called  milk  on  this  occasion;  there  was  music  an.l  gayety,  etc.  1  lutarch 
gives  many   important   details  about  this  rite.      Plut.  Cic.  XII-XXIII. 

8«Plut  Cic.  XIX  is  a  great  chap,  on  the  personal  self  revelation  of  Cicero  that 
evening  before  the  4th  Catilinarian— just  as  reliable  as  though  he  had  left  a  diary. 
Cicero  was  not  an  audacious  man  in  publie.     Plut.  Cic.  XIX  alone  has  this. 


xvni 

On  the  fifth  (Nones)  of  December,  63  B.  C  the  senate 
convened  and  Cicero  delivered  the  fourth  oration  against 
Catiline.  He  made  his  speech  during  the  debate  c(mcerning 
the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  on  the  conspirators  who  had 

been  taken  prisoners.  ,.     ,   .       ,  r    r 

At  the  beginning  of  this  trial  Cicero  disclaimed  any  teeling 
of  anxiety  for  his  personal  safety  and  was  willing  to  accept 
the  conditions  of  his  consulship  and  content  to  bear  all  indig- 
nities and  hardships,  providing  the  public  was  preserved  and 

dancfer  averted. 

Cicero  assured  the  senate  of  his  belief  that  no  man  will  meet 
a  death  undeserving  his  character  or  meet  death  before  his 
allotted  time,  and  urged  upon  them  once  again  the  need  to 

< 
48 


consider  the  question  of  their  own  welfare,  the  peril  threaten- 
mg  their  families  and  the'^wearof  the  state. 

Cicero  cited  as  precedents  acts  in  former' history,  unconsti- 
tutional, but  not  so  destructive,  which  merited  and  met  with 
the   severest  punishment.     Severe  measures  were  justifiable. 
It  would  seem  as  though  the  senate  had  already  practically 
condemned    the   guilty,   inasmuch   as    it    had    voted   Cicero   a 
thanksgiving  and  had  given  the  captured  ones  into  custody. 
Ihis  was  the  important  date  in  Cicero's  career,  December 
oth,  63  B.   C,  when  fwas  held  the  trial  of  those  conspiring 
against  the  commonwealth  which  Cicero  untiringly  toiled  to 
preserve  from  peril  from  without  and  from  corruption  from 
within.^  On  this  date  the  revolutionists  who  had  been  cap- 
tured were  sentenced  to  pay  the  penalty  bv  death  ;  and  the 
decree  passed  into  immediate  execution.) 

The  question  is  which  of  the  two  alternatives  moved  shall 
be  adopted.     Shall  it  be  capital  punishment  or  life  imprison- 

'^.j   P'  ^la»"^S  the  consul-elect,  called  first,  advises  the 
one;  Julius  Caesar,  the  other. 

There  are  objections  to  Caesar's  plan,^  though  that  would  be 
the  simpler  proposition  for  Cicero  personally,  i.  e.  life  impris- 
onment. But  no  penalty  can  be  too  severe  for  the  revolu- 
tionists, and  in  commending  the  opinion  of  Silanus,  Cicero 
takes  the  ground  that  those  who  plot  ruin  for  the  republic  are 
no  longer  citizens  and  therefore  not  legally  protected  by  the 
Sempronian  law  which  also  affirmed  the  principle  that  Roman 
citizens  could  not  be  put  to  death  except  by  decree  of  the 
people,  to  whom  appeal  could  be  made  after  sentence  bv  a 
magistrate.' 

All  classes  of  sound  thinking  people  are  united  in  defence 
of  the   state,   even   the   slaves   and   freedmen ;   therefore   the 
senate   should   not   neglect   its    duty   and    the   responsibility 
reposed  in  it.     As  for  himself,  Cicero  disclaims  any  fear  for 
the  future  because  of  his  relentless  actions  toward  the  con- 
spirators.   Never  shall  he  regret  having  sentenced  them  with 
the  death  penalty.    His  conduct  in  this  trial  shall  never  smite 
his  conscience.     He  feels  he  has  acted  wisely  for  the  good  of 
all,  and  the  only  reward  he  requests  is  the  sincere  regard  of 
the  citizens  and  a  remembrance  of  his  services  for  the  state ' 
Sallust  makes  no  mention"  of  Cicero's  speech  and  Cicero    of 
course,  omits  the  motion  of  Cato.'  which  came  later,  and  which 
Sallust  gives  as  the  influencing  factor  in  decreeing  the  death 
penalty.    Cato  received  glory;  Cicero,  in  later  years,  humilia- 
tion, because  it  was  under  his  regime  that  the   decree  was 
executed. 

*Suet,    Caes.    14,   Plut.   Cic.  ^'l. 

'Ad  Att.  12.  21,  1:  even  18  years  later,  when  Caesar  was  Dictator.  Cicero  regards 
Caesar's  motion  in  63  B.  C.  as  severe.  Plut.  Cic.  21  supposed  imprisonment  of 
culprits  for  limited  period.  Appian  inaccurately  reports  Caesar's  motion  as 
"arrest  until   Catiline  is   defeated:   then   they  are  to  be  prosecuted." 


49 


\ 


It  is  generally  agreed  by  historians  that  Cicero  s  speech 
was  not  the  decisive  one.  It  was  short  and  came  before 
Cato's  expression  of  summary  action  and  execution.  Com- 
pared with  the  almost  triumphantly  cheerful  second  and  third 
^peeches-particularly  the  third-it  is  gloomy,  bearing  in  it- 
self the  characteristics  of  depression,  the  prospect  of  evil  to 
come,  the  foreshadowing  of  future  woe.  It  is  a  Reflection  of 
his  anxiety,  doubts,  and  fears  of  the  previous  night  But  the 
state  must  be  energetically  preserved,  whatever  of  Personal 
ill-fortune  befall  the  consul ;  that  is  Cicero  s  main  thought,  as 
we  have  frequently  had  evidence;  he  and  Cato  were  two  of 
the  verv  few  ideallv  patriotic  and  loyal  citizens  of  Rome  of 
that  generation.  Until  Cato  rose  to  express  his  opinion  the 
maiority  of  the  senate  had  been  swayed  by  Caesars  logic, 
i  e  placement  of  the  culprits  under  surveillance  in  the  munici- 
palities, and  confiscation  of  their  property.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  discussion  lay  to  the  greater  extent  between  Caesar 
and  Cato,  for  Silanus  after  advocating  capital  punishment 
had  later  hedged  more  or  less  in  his  proposal. 

Cato's  motion  prevailed,  and  the  chief  conspirator.s  in  the 
city  were  executed  in  the  Tullianum."  Even  then,  although 
accomplished  with  the  sanction  of  the  senate  the  weight  of 
responsibility  which  fell  upon  Cicero's  shoulders  oppresses 
his  thoughts  and  presages  some  impending  misfortune. 

^Cat.  IV,  4,  5.  6.  7.  8, 
^Cat.   IV,  9. 
^Cat.  IV,  10,   11. 

'v'"alst^Ad^"tt.    12,    21.    cf.    Plut.    Cat.    Min.    22,    Appian    II     6    reports    Nero's 
motion   "To  keep  in  arrest  until  Catiline  is  driven  out  of  Italy  by  battle 

"piut.   Cat.   Min.   23   records  the   speech   of   Cato   taken   down  by   clerks  appointed 

^^  ^^I'C'Mur.   c.    .17.     In   the   Pro   SuU..    Cicero   is   compelled    to    review   his   activities 
in  the  premise. 

inpro  Siill.  c.   11. 


XIX 

Soon  after,  early  in  January,  62  B.  C,  the  leader  of  all 
this  discontented  rabble,  a  unique  character  hghting  to  the 
last  with  a  tremendous  courage  worthy  of  a  more  heroic 
endeavor,  fell  on  the  field  at  Pistoria,  where  he  and  those 
remainin^r  of  his  dauntless,  bold  coterie  had  engagement  with 
Petreius,^  who  led  the  Roman  forces,  although  Antonius  was 
nominally  commander.  He  is  reported  to  have  been  ill  tha 
dav  of  battle.  Catiline's  head  was  sent  to  Rome.  Thus  fell 
a  man  of  splendid  attainments.^  physically  and  mentally  who 
appeared  throughout  his  whole  career  to  have  been  domi- 
nated by  vice  and  crime,  whose  nefarious  deeds  in  official  and 
non-official  positions  had  finally  fired  him  with  a  reckless  zeal 

50 


which  led  him  to  attempt  the  committal  of  the  most  das- 
tardly crime  of  men— the  overthrow  of  his  own  common- 
wealth. 

In  the  consulship  of  Silanus  and  Murena,  62  B.  C,  after 
Catiline's  death,  there  followed  prosecutions  of  others  said 
to  have  been  members  of  the  conspiracy.  These  court  cases 
would  not  have  been  possible  if  Catiline  had  not  been  killed. 
Among  those  involved  were  Autronius'  and  Sulla ;  the  latter 
later  became  Cicero's  client.  These  trials  took  some  time; 
Sec.  83  shows  there  were  many  cases  before  Sulla's  was  pro- 
grammed. 

Autronius,  as  has  been  said  in  a  preceding  section,  had 
allotted  to  him  the  occupation  of  Italy  when  everything  was 
being  arranged,^  prepared^  and  settled.  He  was  accused  by 
the  Allobroges,'  whose  testimony  was  most  authentic  and 
important,  and  likewise  by  the  letters  of  many  men  and  many 
private  witnesses.  He  was  left  in  the  city  but  expected  out  of 
It;  his  only  check  at  flight  seems  to  have  been  the  punishment 
of  Lentulus  (December  5th,  63  B.  C).  Of  him  Cicero  says 
that  he  .sometimes  succumbed  to  emotions  of  fear  but  never 
to  any  of  proper  feelings  or  good  sense.  Most  all  of  the  men 
proven  to  have  been  in  the  undertaking  were  convicted*  by 
their  own  manner  of  life,  before  the  suspicion  of  good  citizens 
fastened  upon  them. 

Autronius  had  always  been  bold,  profligate,  and  reckless; 
he  had  been  known  to  be  violent  toward  his  accusers  and  to 
defend  himself  by  his  pugilistic  method  and  by  a  vulgar 
language.  He  had  also  been  charged  with  usurping  men's 
properties  and  doing  away  with  his  neighbors.  Desecration  of 
the  temples  of  the  allies  was  not  unknown  to  his  hands: 
plunder,  violation  of  courts,  adultery,  hostility  toward  all  good 
men  and  the  interest  of  the  state,  were  all  numbered  among 
his  qualifications  as  a  capable  applicant  for  membership  in 
that  circle  of  evil  doers.  Crassus'  did  not  escape  suspicion 
of  being  concerned  in  the  great  conspiracy  of  Catiline  which 
very  nearly  subverted  the  government.  One  witness  declared 
him  a  plotter  but  nobody  credited  this  testimony. 

Cicero  clearly  charges  both  Crassus  and  Caesar  with  impli- 
cation" in  the  plot.  Crassus  seems  to  have  mitigated  his 
co-operation  in  the  plot  to  some  extent  for  he  came  to  Cicero 
by  night  and  brought  a  letter'  concerning  Catiline  stating  the 
details  of  the  conspiracy.  Crassus  hated  him  ever  after  that 
but  his  son's*  influence  hindered  him  from  doing  Cicero  any 
public  injury. 

»SalI.  Cat.  XX-XXIV,  Pro  Caelio,  Cat.  I-IV. 

-Pro  Sull.  Sees.  10,  15,  16,  17,  18,  37,  66,  67,  68,  83. 

'Pro   Sull.   c.    5. 

*Pro  Sull.  c.  25,  yr.  62  B.   C. 

*Plut.  Crass. 


51 


Plutarch  informs  us  that  Caesar  found  so  many  '"^'""^tion^ 
-.nd  charees  aeainst  him  in  the  senate  that  he  went  to  the 
people  "fcieXvored  to  excite  the  more  -"«Pta„d  disso- 
lute of  the  elements  of  the  state  ni  order  to  form  a  bod> 
for  his  own  support,  but  Cato,  apprehensive  of  the  results, 
nduced  the  senate  to  distribute  corn  among  the  poor  classes, 
and  this  win  them  over.    This  act  of  liberality,  wuhout  ques- 

^^^Bu/'M^temfs  t1a!^t.rhoS^iotr  assemblies  and  pre- 
JS  a'm:^lon  tha^^  Pompey  .should  be  called  into    tal     w. t b 
,i<i  forces    to  preserve  the  city  from  peril  of  Catiline  s  con 
si^rac       That  was  only  a  plausible  pretense ;  the  real  inirpose 
was  to  resign  all  matters  into  Pompey  s  jurisdiction,  subject 

^\t  to  ml;  w^Uinied  state's  evidence  at  the  trial  of  the 
cols,  irators  were  Curius  and  Vettius  who  named  Caesar 
ilso'"  The  conservatives  wanted  to  get  rid  of  Caesar,  they 
knew  that  ho  was  a  mighty  man  :  therefore  his  enemies  would 
gS'  have  had  him  in  the  list  if  they  could  have 

Caesar"   and   Crassus  were   a  problem— their    real    mcne. 
w..re  one  of  those  things  that  did  not  come  out     .     „     ^      .    , 
Yn  connec  ion  with  this  narrative  let  us  read  in  Suetonius. 
He  gi'  eH^^  n  e  inci.lents  in  Caesar's  career  subsequent  to    he 
rWl    which  ha<l  their  origin  in  the  conspiracy.     Substant.alh  , 
ev  1  ea     vi  ncss  that  some  time  after  the  trial  and  condemna- 
m  of  the  conspirators.  Caesar  was  named  as  having  been 
n n  onJ  tt  acJ  m    ices  of  Catiline,  both  before  Novuis  Niger 
t  Imnestor    bv   the  informer   L.  Vettius;  and  alsx.  in   the 
eL^ebvQ.  Cumins,  to  whom  a  reward  had  been  voted  because 
W  had  first  discovered  the  designs  of  the  consjorators. 

r  idus  daimc.l  that  he  had  his  information  against  Caesar 
(ronrCati  ine      vittius.  indeed,  pledged  hi"-elf  able  tc,  pro- 
duce as  evidence  against  Caesar,  papers,  in   Caesar  s  hand 
writinsr    which  Caesar  had  given  Catiline. 

C-^es-ir  rebelled  against  these  accusations  and  appealed  to 
CiSro  himself  if  he^had  not  of  his  own  free  will  --'e  ><"-- 
to  Cicero  some  particulars  of  the  conspiracy.  Caesar  throug 
Ks  appeal,  accomplished  it  tl^'-^*  Curius  was  prev^nted^fr^^^ 
receiving  the  expected  reward.  As. for  Vettius.  Laesar  oDiige 
hhiflo  live  pledges  to  answer  for  his  conduct ;  he  deorived 
Wm  o^his  possessions:  he  saw  him  harshly  abused  and  almost 

.Pl„,    Crass.    1.1.      Cicero  dW   n„.   publish   his   speech   until   .hey   were   ho.h   dead. 
S.-.1I.  Cat.  Xt.Vin.  MIX. 

do  likewise.     Tie  did  finally   reconcile  Ctcero  to  h>s  father.     Pint.  Crass. 

"rs^e,.'""::  ,.  Caes.  1.   17.  v.   also  c.   12   of   this  thesis.      ,n   to.,  end.   74. 


Imprisonment  was  the  fate  of  Novius  Niger   also    the  ore 

t^^^^f^^ir^^r  ^"'^""'^"t  "■■^^--^  'to  i.ta^; ; 

T-u  "lagihtrate  of  superior '  office 

.leSns'Zk'tl,;':''  Cic^™',r'^°u'"'^'  '^^'■'^  *'^«  Catilinarian 
designs,  took  the  case  of  Sulla,  ch  ef^y  prosecuted  bv  Tor 

quatus,  shows  prima  facie  that   he   is  convinced   of   Sulk's' 

"X";  :o'' H^''  "^Tr*"^"  ^-"--  Cic"r:'shoufd"'L'o 
hJc.       .1         ,  ^^  "^^^  ^'^  pre-stige  (auctoritas)  by  taking 
this  case  though  not  to  throw  weight  into  the  case  He  believe? 

hmtAt    C]  '^""■'^  °'  ''''  ^"•^'•"■^^-     Th-  was  cfcero'   Tat 

dation  •  o  ,  t  Z  r  '•■°!'r'i"""  "''*''  ^'"y  Catilinarian  asso- 
ciation,  joint  pleader  with  hmi   was  Hortensius  •  this  is  one 

evidence  of  his  eminence  among  prominent  men!  ' 

ir.  lhr?r  '^^  imp<,rtance  as  furnishing  an  epilogue" 

to  the  Catilinarian  ei)isode.  in  detailing  which  manv  references 
have  been  made  to  the  aforesaid  oration,  for  in  di?s  speech 
Cicero  ran  through  the  earlier  months  of  the  vear  62  B   C 

That  the  courts  were  full  is  evidenced  by  the  special  annoinf 
ment  by  the  senate  of  a  quaesitor.  who  wafusuany  some  able" 

0  competent  aedile.  next  in  grade,  and  who  was  to  preside  at 

S:  tri^    in"    s""'*."T"^''"u^'^-     '^""'^  prosecution  was  a 
state  trial,  m  cases  of  which  the  government  did  not  choose 

rer'l'd  .    nT/  '  <-"«-t,tion  to  do  so:  the  defense  how- 
c  er.  had  a  right  to  reject  a  certain  number.     Rome  had  no 
l-nbhc  pro.secutor;  any  worthy  lawyer  could  present  charges 
an.    with   him  some  others  subscribed.     Torquatus  and   his" 

1  aetus  and  Cornelius  Sulla  as  consuls  designati  for  6:;  B    C 

The  case  of  Autronius"  was  over,  as  were  the  trial  "  of  all 
other  suspected  conspirators :  the  essential  evidence  had  foun 

into  exile.     He  is  introduced"  often    n   the  Pro   Sulla  as  a 

h  raSenVicstf  ?'^'^  ^^'^^"^"*    *-'*''    with  "the  tiKu 
cnaracteristics  of  Aiitroniiis. 

^^;Suet.    Vit.   J.   Caes.   9,    Plut.   Cras....    Phu.   Cato,   Quintilian. 
-Caesar  was  at  that  time  praetor.     Suet    Vit    J    Caes    c    17 

"Son  of  consul  of  65   B.  C.     Interesting  to   note  that' one  of  the   .ubscnptors  to 
the   charge   of   Torquatus   was   son    of    that   man    C     Cornolh,  u  "^^^''Pt^"^^  ^^ 

wayo^slay  Cicero  in  «  B.  C.     Pro  Su„.  c.  IS.  v^orcI.'.'Tc.t  sT cl.^Tx'v';;: 

ijop:  fi::  .r^-^^,  ™^:   -;,:.^-e  co„.iracy. 

"Pr"  s:",.^:."s.":.  3; ''™  ""'■ '"  *'  ''•  ^- "'"'  ""^ ''-''''  -'^^  -^"•«"- 

"Pro    Sull.    Sees,    JO,    15,    16     17     18     17     a^       c.,ii   » 
p.  ,     „  ^   .    1^,    10,    1/,    i»,    37,    66.      Sulla  s  case   perhaps   held    in    late 

Feb,  or  early  March.     Not  only  did  Cicero  refuse  to  defend  Autronius  (Sees    17  I8i 

^f^^def"TH'°^^'"' " '  "'*"^"  ^^^'"^^  ^'"^-  «^  considered  hirh':  a  ;^t 

.f   he   defended    one   so   intrinsically    inculpated   in    the   conspiracv.      "AuLnius   W 
•coming   and   asking   me   to   take   the   case."   c.    6.  -'Mitronms    kept 


52 


53 


XX 

Among  the  members  of  the  decadent'  Rotrian  society  was 
the  majority  of  the  family  of  the  Claudu-but  of  the  very; 
acmrot'  the'dregs  of  ^he  society  of  that  day  were  P^Uo^- 
Piilcher   and  h  s  sister  Clodia.    A  full  dose  oi  "'.<=.'      M-^^^ 
m  will  of  this  Clodius,  was  the  most  b.tter  med.cme   C.cero 

ever  had  to  swallow  in  his  life.  Untr^.l  no-ainst 

p.  Clodius  Pulcher,  actuated  by  motives  of  hj^^re^  '  gamst 

nlebeian  that  he  might  become  a  tribune  of  the  peop  e  ( m 
h  inus  Dlebis)    which  ofifice  an  aristocrat  could  not  hold_     In 

*^  rir-f-rn  as  consul  and  executive  in  that  year. 

1?  innw  threatened  the  "Saviour  of  his  Country."  Caesar 
and  PomTy  we^Tsuspected  of  aiding  this  persecution  because 
of  CiSro^s  ^efusaf  to.agree  to  some  of  the.r  w    h  ^^^^_^^ 

,  ^''f''":riThLVs«L^d  ':  mucrho^^^  and  envy. 
hieflyVp'm^e^  now  bolder  though,  late  e^orts  and  per- 
suSn.  and  th?o^gh  the  untiring  exertions  o^ J'tu  Annius 
Mile'  a  tribune,  who  also  argued  in  C'«ros  favor  backed  oy 
the  desire  of  all  Italy  and  the  decree  of  the  senate, 

'^'Ws^banisiment  had  caused  great  regret ;  his  return   greater 
jofffis  house,  demolished  by  Clodius.  was  rebuilt  at  the 

•='^P.|rcfc^'o'^•e^  n".  5,  U.  CIV. 

sClodius— plebeian   spelling.  n  ,    ^\T  ^.r    '>0 

^'"  »Vdl^Ti;    4,    5,    Cic.    refused    to    he    1     of    20    con.„.issioners    to    divide    lands    of 
Campagna,   v.    De   leg.    agrar. 

•Ad  Att..  Livy  CIV,  In  Piso.  e.   15. 

^Pro   Milone. 


XXI 

A  few  facts  regarding  the  chief  authors,  aside  from  Cicero 
whose  works  h^ve  been  consulted,  to  supplement  or  review 

'"'VveriTrief  comparison  will  be  included.  In  reading  the 
ac^otmTs'  of  the  various  historians,  the  personal  element  in 
their  writing  must  not  be  depreciated. 


Sallust,  a  former  debauched  aristocrat    woe   ,   r- 
lie  was  made  bv  Caesar  hcth  ,=  '*"^;?erat,  was  a   Caesarian; 

When  he  abandoned  nuWrch-t  U  P°'""^"  ^"^  ^^  ^  "^^  man 
then  he  began  to  write  h  to  v  TtT  T^  ^'"''"^y"  ^*  ^^« 
telling  in  givine  hricco,  n.    f "     ^  ^u!^  "°  ""^^'^^  "'"t  truth 

the  Catilin^rLn"^  matte     "cair^o'uer'^KTt^  ""'  ^''^'^^°  '" 
not  mention    or  else  X«Zf  questionable'  acts  he  does 

is  hostile  °n  attitt  de  k^uZ^^''  ^°"?P«'-ed  with  Dio,  who 
Cicero.  H,"  OuTpSe  can  WH^  ^^  n"i  ^'l  "^P'"'"""  ^^^^^^ 
of  Caesar  If  he  wrnt?"  ll  ^  ^^  '"f".*^'^  ^  "white-washing"' 
at  times  nraise  Cicero  nr%rj  T^  '"*;"*'°"  ^'^^  ^°^^  ^e 
were  a  Cicero  hnZ  'X  ftlu?\7%^"''^''''''^^'  ''"*  '^  ^' 
higher  motive     mJfJ,uI  •    I        ^"""^'y  we  can  ascribe  a 

most  bitter   enemies    wl^.i,  ^^  ?^*'''  °"^  "^  Caesar's 

Caesar.  '   ^'^^    *^^   ^^'"e   sincerity  as   he   does 

one  ye'ar'SeaT'lamlJf  *  "  '°"^^  '"  ^'^'"o-'o^v.'-at  least 
acce,Is  to  an  records  so  Tfh  \"Tu'"  ^"^^  '^^^"''^  '^^'^e  had 
.^earch.  he  ciud  have  been  m'o'stex.cr^'"''^''/"^^'^^  '•^- 
torv,  names,  f5gures  and  dTf^  •*•  ^^^"^^  ^=^<^*^  '"  h'S" 
on  careful  resefrch      SalbS    h    ^''  ™PO'-tant  onlv  if  based 

he  appealed  strongly  to  the  schoIiT/onre''  ^°  ^"'•''^"*  '''''' 
sometimes  in  slinniL  in  fLtc       V^ j  ?'^-    P^  '^  inaccurate 

their  occurrence  Tntifi;ati?g'e;eS'ofelse'lT  '^.""''^"^  '"^ 
priates    passages    direrth      !.;,*•    '  ,  '^*^'' '  °^  ^poro- 

althoueh  in  PI    of  ch    XVTTT   ,,'"  w*'    '^^"^    incorrectly,' 
h-afsUt-fucras  Tr!^^^-^^^  ^f" 

reit^shS  toTore"of"h7s'  ''^--^  ^s°  ati,i?e^-^h: 

should  have  stated TherJ  i^nnn*"^^"'""' '  '^  ^'  had  facts  he 
then  simply  cardess  abou/ the  tV.U^'^'f '^^^^  Tr^'  ^'  -- 
regarded  only  the  rhetorkal  efllct  statements,  and 

wa?:SrtritTngtdeTSSn"  'h^'^  ""''''  ^^--^-• 
Tn   comparing  the   s'tremenS' of'suet^ni^Vn?  Sallf  ;' •" 

ntt^s^  m^ '^^eirc:  ZTX  r^^-  "°  F"-  Ca"elr" 

'To  witness:  his  Horti  Sallustiani. 

>Suet.   Vit.   Caes.  J.   Caes.   I,   co-operation   with  Autronius. 


54 


55 


il* 


Dio  Cassius,  a  Roman  senator  of  eastern  extraction    who 

friends  later  show  him  favor  historical 

„ov7'  lTl^'thfros?:r;ir:iSe.Us^o'f  Clascal  research  that 
an  of  Lit;  has'not  been  preserved,  or  else  we  should  have 

"  WithmU  "tte  'De'°Petitione  Consulatus  of  Quintus  Cicero 

^^^Tz::^^^:'^^^^^^  -se-.  he 

did\^Kve\  sense  of  li^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Srcte;%ri;;nmVnt  and  drcumstances  of  the  subjects  who 

characters  involved. 

Ti  ""clZ^Zt  reWCat'TanaMMu.  in,  J.  688,  Rh.  Mu.  .8n,  on  SaUus.V 
i„acc„.;de;   in   .in,e;   he  ^s  concerned  only  wit^he  story.     ^^^^^      ^^      ^^,,      ^^, 

"Sail.     Cat.     c.     XXAl,     *»,        .    •         f  ^^ 

XXI    with    In   tog.    cand.       .    .    •   '"^"'""  „    _         5,    ..      .    .   duo    corpora  . 

.Pro   Mur.    Sec.    49   ".    .    .  Vultus  .  _■      Sec. 
Sec    51    ".    .    .   crupit  .    .    ."  San.  Cat.  XV.  ,   „  ,,  „    c 

'Suet     Vit.   Caes.   J.   Caes.   I-A«tronius  matter   of   66-65   B.   C. 


XXII 

To  summarize-An  attempt  has  been  made  to  read  dosely 
and  elicit  such  facts  in  connection  wMth   the  h^^^or 
tradition  of  Catiline  as  are  not  generally  "«^«.^' ^aWemg 
Irom   contemporary  historians    writers    and   orators    w  ^^^ 

speeches  were  P"Wfed    or  from  private  let^e  ^^^^ 

touches  are  most  'nt''"f  ^/^f. '""  "tJ' the  ongi"^'  ''terary 
of  later  authors,  who  had  "^e^ourse  to  tne  o   g  ^^^^ 

productions,  which  now  have  ^een  entirely  or  P^rt    J^^.^^,^, 
or  who  were  eligible  to  search  through  records,  ^o 
to  the  general  public,  furnish  "J^^yJ^f  ^^"^  fecundation  fo. 

'^tome  questions,  ^^--se  of  lac^  of  internal   evi^^^ 

rm°^m^utTelyXfdersr\^^^^^ 
draw'  them  forth  from  out  of  their  obscunty. 

S6 


<« 


evSl'  whTh"  hi*'/'  ^'^''  "''""  '^  "°^  *h^  ^^^-^t  date  of  the 
event,  which  has  been  a  matter  of  discussion,  has  been  to 

B   C   rnd"thrr'  "'rM'"  '""^  ^^^^  °^  ^-'^^  the 'election  o   63 
ti.  (-.,  and  the  trial  of  Murena. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  treat  of  the  literarv  form 
of  any  one  of  the  writers.  Only  Sallust  and  Suet^i'L  th^ 
Latin  historians,  have  been  briefly  compared;  the  ether  Latin 

wrS"norso 'I'"  '""'T  ^^'^^  ^^^^"*  ^  ^^^-''  -^  th^  oth  r 
writers   not  so  universally  renowned.     Could  we  have  all  of 

Livy,  who,  probably  through  Tiro,  took  much  from  Ciceo's 
own  works  judging  by  the  traces,  we  would  have  a  rock 
upon  which  to  build.  Dio,  who  bases  upon  Livy  so  often 
mjects  his  own  motives  into  his  narration,  or  omits^^sent  a's 
as  the  mood  seems,  to  capture  him,  tha  cautious  steps  are 
necessary  in  following  him.  ^ 

Plutarch  gives  us  many  personal,  exceedingly  familiar  and 
graphic  touches  that  we  can  affirm,  almost^without  hesita 
tion,  that  he  probably  read  intensively  in  Tiro's  Wogranlv 
at  least  ,n  the  main.  While  Suetonius  is  most  careful  "and' 
exact  in  research,  the  minute,  detailed  facts  of  per.sonai  h"s 
tory  m  Plutarch  would  point  to  Tiro.'  '^r-'onai  nis 

■He  ;:£„;,  '::r;i:.:z:::^  ^^^-^-^^tz  r.r  '-'^r  '- 

later  and  impartial  as   witness  Asc;nius  in   In   To;a   CanLa  "    "'   "''""'^ 

Sueto^rus!""'"""''""-  '""^"^  "'  ^'^-  ^'''-""'"'^^  "'"""-^  "■»'  P'-arch  followed 


XXIII 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Of  the  Chief  Works  Consulted 

^'tion 'b^'c^^F '  S''m  "'f,  °''"!  ^"f  ^  supersunt  omnia.    Edi- 
i^i-iw'  '  ^  Teubner,  1884-1890, 

^"onfn'J:.!"  n'   P  T^'"''^"  ^"^  P"'"^'^^'  O-  ^-  Schmidt. 
— guintus,  De  Petitione  Consulatus. 

Dio  Cassius  Cocceianus. 

Publius  Vergilius  Maro-Aeneid  I-XII 

^sdiodlBerHn*^"''""''  *^°'""'^"tary,  by  Orelli,  Kiessling  & 

—Commentary,  A.  G.  Clark.     Clarendon  Press. 
Nepos   Cornelius,    (Atticus).     Nipperdey's   edition,    1840. 
Appian,  Civil  War,  esp.   Fr.  2,  2,  to  4,  20.  ^^ 

Velleius  Paterculus. 

Plutarch  of  Chaeronea.    The  lives  of  Sulla,  Marius,  Pompey 
Caesar,  Cicero,  Cato  minor.  "'"pey, 

C.  Crispus  Sallustius,  Historia  de  Catilinae  Conjuratione. 

S7 


Gaius  Suetonius  Tranquillus,  Vitae  Caesarum  Liber  I. 
Gaston  Boissier,  Cicero  et  ses  Amis,  Paris,  1866. 
VV.  Drumann,  Gesch.  Roms.  in  seinem  Uebergange,  etc.,  1834, 
sqq.,  vol.  5  (1841)  and  vol.  6  (1844). 

Fischer,  Zeittafeln.  r   r      r  r--  or 

Wm.  Forsyth,  M.  A.  Queen's  Counsel.     Life  of  Cicero,  1862. 
Alfred  Gudeman,  The  Sources  of  Plutarch's  Life  of  Cicero. 

Publ.  of  the  Univ.  of  Pennsylvania,  1902. 
Carl  Halm  edited  w.  notes :  the  Catilinarians,  pro  Murena, 

pro  P.  Sulla  and  the  first  six  of  the  Philippics. 
W.  Ihne,  Rom.  Geschichte.     (8  vols.)     Heidelberg  Vols.  6,  7, 

8,   (1886.)  ^    .,      .. 

Const.  John,  Die  Entstehungsgeschichte  der  Catil.  Versch- 
worung,  etc.     Jahrb.  f.  Philol.,  Supplement  and  8,  701-819. 

L.  Lange— Constitution  and  Lav^s — 3  vols. 

Fr    Leo,  Miscella  Ciceroniana.     Goett.,  1892. 

George  L.  Long,  The  Decline  of  the  Roman  Republic.  Lon- 
don &  Cambridge,  1864-74,  5  volumes 

Conyers   Middleton    (1683-1750).     The    Life    of    M.  lullius 

Cicero. 
Th.  Mommsen,  Strafrecht,  1899. 
Pauly-Wissowa,  articles :  Appianus,  Asconius,  Asinius  Pollio, 

Cassius  Dio.  .        t^»       ,      tt  n        o 

Carl  Peter,  Geschichte  Roms,  Zweiter  Band.     Halle,  i»54. 
Otto  E.  Schmidt,  Die  letzten  Kaempfe  der  Rom.  Republ.  1884 
E.    G.    Sihler,    Testimonium    Animate    (chapt.    16,    Cicero    of 

Arpinum,  Cato  of  Utica),  1908.  .     .        .,.  . 

—Lucretius  and  Cicero,  Amer.  Philol.  Association,   Irans.  t. 

1897. 
— Annals  of  Caesar. 

•  -Cicero  of  Arpinum.  .    .     ^  1       t  1 

E.  Von  Stern,  Catilina  U.  die  Parteikaempfe  in  Rom.  der  Jahr 

66-6^  Dorpat,  1883.  _  ,,     ^    ,      ^ 

J.  L,  Strachan-Davidson,  Cicero  and  the  Fall  of  the  Roman 

Republic,  Putnams,  1906.  .. 

W.  H.  D.  Suringar,  M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  Commentani  Rerum 

Suarum  sive  de  vita  sua.  ^  c  1    -f.  Tnhin 

W.  TeufTel,  Ueber  Ciceros  Charaktcr  und  Schriften.     1  ubin- 

Rol^T'YeWerton  Tyrrell  and  L.  Purser,  The  Correspondence 
of  M  Tullius  Cicero,  arranged  ace.  to  its  chron.  order,  2ncl 
ed      bubl.  London,  1885,  6  vols.,  and  separ.  Index  vol. 


58 


*\ 


! 


DUE  DATE 

MAY  ?s 

nqB2 

v)  v'  ipEuB 

1 

! 

1 

t 
! 

1 

1 

! 

Printed 
in  USA 

( 


1 


(      li 


